THE BRAILLE MONITOR December, 1986 Kenneth Jernigan, Editor Published in inkprint, Braille, on talking-book disc, and cassette by THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT National Office 1800 Johnson Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230 * * * * Letters to the President, address changes, subscription requests, orders for NFB literature, articles for the Monitor, and letters to the Editor should be sent to the National Office. * * * * Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five dollars per year. Members are invited, and non-members are requested, to cover the subscription cost. Donations should be made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to: National Federation of the Blind 1800 Johnson Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230 * * * * THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES ISSN 0006-8829 NFB NET BBS: (612) 696-1975 WorldWide Web: http://www.nfb.org CONTENTS DECEMBER 1986 CONVENTION BULLETIN NORTH CAROLINA GIVES NAC THE BOOT NAC THROWN OUT IN RHODE ISLAND THE CHANGE by Betty Pacelli CHERYL MCCASLIN VICTIMIZED BY STEREOTYPED MISCONCEPTIONS DISCRIMINATION COMES TO THE LIBRARY IF I HAD ONLY THOUGHT by Gary Wunder WE CANE, WE TAUGHT, WE CONQUERED by Christine Roberts-Boone REFLECTIONS ON INTEGRATION by Fred Schroeder GROWING UP WITH INDEPENDENCE: THE BLIND CHILD'S USE OF THE WHITE CANE by Fred Schroeder JUSTICE FOR JACKIE NOW ACB'S FAST-FOOD FIASCO: HERE'S THE LATEST CHAPTER by James Gashel ANOTHER STEP TOWARD VICTORY IN THE RALEIGH WORKSHOP CASE JOSEPH O'HARA FORCED OUT IN MISSOURI by Kenneth Jernigan CONGRESS PASSES AN AIRLINE BILL: DISCRIMINATION MAY BE COMING TO AN END by Marc Maurer DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REFUSES TO ENFORCE THE LAW OPENING UP A BAG by Jane Crawford ANNOUNCING THE 1986-87 NFB BRAILLE READING CONTEST FOR BLIND CHILDREN by Barbara Cheadle SPRING MERCHANTS CONFERENCE by Ramona Walhof BLIND PASTOR GIVES CHURCH VISION by Dale James VOICE-DIALER TELEPHONE by Kenneth Jernigan RECIPES MONITOR MINIATURES Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1986 CONVENTION BULLETIN The time has come to plan for the 1987 convention of the National Federation of the Blind. Kansas City in 1986 was one of the most successful meetings we have ever had, and 1987 promises to be even better. We are going back to Phoenix. For those who attended the 1984 convention nothing more need be said. We have the same three excellent hotels, which have been upgraded and are now even better than they were then, and most of the meetings will be held (as they were in 1984) at the Civic Center. It is just across the street from the headquarters hotel, and it, too, has been upgraded and improved. We will be meeting at the Hyatt, the San Carlos, and the Heritage--which is the new name for the hotel which was the Ramada in 1984. The Heritage has been completely redone. Taken as a package, these three hotels and the Civic Center (all within a two-block area) offer one of the finest convention setups in the nation. Moreover, the rates continue to be the envy of all who know us. Who else gets single rooms for $25 and doubles for $28? The NFB of Arizona is planning an exciting array of tours and hospitality, and the program agenda will be vintage Federation. Make your reservations early to have a better chance for a room in the headquarters hotel. Also, remember that we need door prizes from state affiliates, local chapters, and individuals. Please remember that prizes should be relatively small in bulk and large in value. Cash, of course, is quite acceptable. In any case we try to have no prize of less than $25 value. Drawings will occur constantly throughout the meetings, and the prizes will aggregate many thousands of dollars. The displays of new technology, the meetings of special interest groups and divisions, the hospitality and renewal of friendships, the solid program items, and the general excitement of being where the action is and where the decisions are being made all join together to call the blind of the nation to Phoenix in the summer of 1987. Come and be part of it. Because of the numbers we continue to attract to our conventions, we are again using the system for handling hotel reservations which we adopted last year. We have constructed a reservation form along the lines of the one we used for the 1985 convention. Additional copies are available upon request from the National Office. Here is what is printed on the form. See you in Phoenix, and get those reservations in: -------------------- NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 1987 CONVENTION ROOM RESERVATION FORM SATURDAY, JUNE 27 - SATURDAY, JULY 4, 1987 NAME ______________________________ ADDRESS ___________________________ CITY/STATE _____________ZIP _______ TELEPHONE ( ) ____________________ ARRIVAL DATE ______________________ DEPARTURE DATE ____________________ TYPE OF ROOM: Single (1 Person with 1 Bed--$25.00) Double (2 Persons with 1 Bed--$28.00) Twin (2 Persons with 2 Beds--$28.00) Triple (3 Persons with 2 Beds--$30.00) Quad (4 Persons with 2 Beds--$34.00)-- Not available at Hyatt LIST NAMES OF ALL PEOPLE, INCLUDING YOURSELF AND ANY CHILDREN, WHO WILL OCCUPY ROOM WITH YOU: Name: Check if Under 18: Arrival Date: Departure Date: (See Reverse Side for Details) ROOM RESERVATION SYSTEM 1. All reservations must be made through the National Office. You may call 301-659-9314 or write: Convention Reservations, National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. Reservations may not be made directly with the hotel. If you try to make a reservation through the hotel directly and even if the hotel inadvertently accepts such a reservation and confirms it to you, it is not a valid reservation. Valid reservation confirmations will be made only by the National Office. 2. No reservation will be accepted without a thirty dollar per room deposit. One half of the deposit is nonrefundable. One half of the deposit is refundable if notice of cancellation is received in the National Office on or before Friday, June 12, 1987. Except in special circumstances and with prior approval from the National Office, deposits for rooms are nontransferable. In other words if you find that you cannot come to the convention at the last minute, you cannot give or sell your reservation and deposit to somebody else without prior approval from the National Office. It simply creates too much chaos and confusion. 3. Even though a deposit must be received before your reservation is accepted and finalized, you may (if you like) call on the phone to be sure that you are giving us all of the information we need and that everything is in order. If you adopt this procedure, you can follow up with the required deposit. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that no reservation will be accepted and finalized until all required information and the deposit are received in the National Office. As indicated, no reservation will be accepted without certain minimum required information. The required information is: A) Name, address, telephone number B) Arrival date C) Departure date D) Type of room requested: single, one person in a room; double, which means two people in one bed in a room; twin, which means two people in a room with each person having a separate bed; triple, three persons in a room with two beds; and quad, four persons in a room with two beds. E) Names of roommates and arrival and departure dates for each. 4. A reservation will be assigned an acceptance number and be confirmed only when complete information and a deposit have been received. Assignment to the Hyatt and overflow hotels will be based on acceptance number. 5. Deposits will be credited to the person making the reservation unless a distribution among roommates is requested in writing when the deposit is sent. 6. Convention room rates are $25 single, $28 double and twin, $30 triple, and $34 quad--all plus tax (currently 7.4 percent). In order to get these special rates, you must register for the convention in Phoenix. There is no extra charge for children under 18 in the room with their parents, but names of children should be listed on the room reservation form anyway. We have something over 600 rooms at the Hyatt Regency, Phoenix; and we have the several hundred remaining rooms we need at two other hotels, the San Carlos and the Heritage, which was formerly the Ramada. Our block of rooms at the Hyatt Regency, Phoenix, consists of approximately 300 rooms, each containing one king size bed; and approximately 300 rooms, each containing one twin and one double bed. Therefore, please note that there are no quad type rooms (four persons with two beds) in the Hyatt. However, one roll-away bed may be added to a room at an additional cost of $15.00 per day. We will assign rooms in the Hyatt on a first come first serve basis until all rooms in each category are filled. Then, we will assign rooms in the San Carlos and Heritage. This means that the first 300 requests for a room with one bed (either single or double) will be assigned to the Hyatt. The first 300 requests for a room with two beds (either twin or triple) will be assigned to the Hyatt. After that, rooms will be assigned in the other hotels. After we have filled the approximately 300 rooms which have king beds, we will not be able to place people requesting a single room in one of the rooms at the Hyatt with two beds. If you want to increase your chances of being placed at the Hyatt, you might (assuming that this is practical for you) indicate your preference for a twin or double but your willingness to accept whichever is available. If (as has already been indicated by some) you prefer to be placed in one of the other two hotels instead of the Hyatt, we will try to honor your request. If you want a refrigerator in your room, call or write the hotel directly AFTER JUNE 1, 1987--AFTER, NOT BEFORE. Refrigerators rent for $25.00 per day. Please make all checks for room deposits payable to: National Federation of the Blind, but address the envelope to Convention Reservations, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. NORTH CAROLINA GIVES NAC THE BOOT In the March, 1986, Braille Monitor we reported that the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) had been kicked out of Kansas and Michigan. Now, NAC faces new disasters. North Carolina is joining the parade. The National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina held its annual convention during the weekend of September 12 - 14, 1986, in Raleigh. One of the items which was slated to receive attention was the accreditation of the Governor Morehead School for the blind by NAC. The school had been accredited since 1972, and the blind of the state were determined to bring the nonsense to an end. A resolution had been drafted and was slated for presentation on Sunday morning, September 14; but it never happened. On Saturday afternoon, September 13, Dr. Richard Rideout (Director of the Division of Special Schools for the Blind and Deaf of the Department of Human Resources) announced to the cheering delegates that the Governor Morehead School had decided to end the NAC accreditation. NAC often talks about the good which it has done and the general public acceptance which it is receiving. However, if any of its board members are at all perceptive or concerned abut the way the blind (the people they supposedly do so much to help) feel, they should think long and carefully about the reaction in North Carolina. At the announcement that the Governor Morehead School would de-NAC the blind cheered. When the school gives up its accreditation, no facility working with the blind anywhere in the state will be NAC-accredited. As the joyous delegates chanted: "NC is NAC-Free." George N. Lee, Superintendent of the Governor Morehead School, sent a memorandum concerning NAC to Dr. Richard Rideout, Director of the Division of Special Schools for the Blind and Deaf of the Department of Human Resources. On October 9, 1986, Hazel Staley (President of the NFB of North Carolina) received from Dr. Rideout a copy of the memorandum. NAC may still be able to claim numbers by accrediting small out of the way groups, but the trend is clear and the pattern irreversible: -------------------- North Carolina Department of Human Resources The Governor Morehead School Raleigh, North Carolina MEMORANDUM To: Richard Rideout From: George N. Lee Re: NAC Reaccreditation The Governor Morehead School has just been reaccredited by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools for the next five years. This is important to our school. The school has also been accredited by the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Impaired since 1972. Our current accreditation expires December 31, 1987. Our annual dues of $2,000 per year are paid up through June 30, 1987. In order to be reaccredited by NAC we would need to complete our self- assessment study this school year and have our on-site visit by NAC next fall. Our Table of Contents for our self-study guide was due July 31. It has not been done. For the following reasons, I recommend that we not seek reaccreditation with NAC. First of all, it is very costly and time-consuming to go through this process. Staff morale is not high now because of cutbacks, and the public hearings are somewhat threatening. I would hate to put the staff through this unless I believed in it very strongly. I do not believe that NAC accreditation has or will have any positive impact on educational programs here at GMS. Fact is I can't really think of any real benefits of NAC accreditation. Some of their standards are unrealistic, such as the number of periodicals required in our library. We have discussed some of these standards before with Mrs. Purser, so I won't elaborate on this point. Ever since I have worked in special education I have known about the problems that the National Federation of the Blind has with NAC. I have been an avid reader of the Braille Monitor for several years. The Federation has recommended on more than one occasion that GMS drop its affiliation with NAC. Out of respect to the Federation and for the other reasons mentioned above, I recommend that we not seek reaccreditation with NAC and not pay dues after June 30, 1987. NAC THROWN OUT IN RHODE ISLAND The past year has been a time of hardship for NAC (the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped). A few months ago NAC was told it wouldn't be needed anymore in Kansas. At about the same time it got a similar message from Michigan. And these messages didn't come from small, insignificant agencies. They came from the Kansas State Services for the Blind and the Michigan School for the Blind. This fall it was the turn of North Carolina. The Governor Morehead School for the Blind (North Carolina's residential school) decided NAC accreditation was not worth continuing. As the superintendent of the school pointed out, the institution had been accredited for more than a dozen years, so it was in a position to know whether or not NAC accreditation is beneficial. NAC keeps trying to smile bravely, but the rejection slips keep coming. This time it is Rhode Island. At the annual state convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Rhode Island on September 27, 1986, a representative of the State Services for the Blind announced that NAC accreditation was being dropped at the end of 1986. The blind of the state were overjoyed and greeted the news with cheers. One would think that NAC would ultimately get the message. The blind (the people it tells the public it is helping) never seem sorry to see it go. The leaders of the NFB of Rhode Island played a key part in the de-NACing: -------------------- Providence, Rhode Island October 7, 1986 Dear President Maurer: I am writing officially to inform you that at our state convention, it was announced by a representative from the Rhode Island State Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired that as of December 31, 1986, they would no longer be affiliated with NAC. This was done by the direct effort of our people on the Governor's Advisory Council for that agency. These people were Ed Beck, Mary Jane Fry, and Father Gerard Sabourin. I wanted to pass this information to you because I am sure, like us, you will be very happy to hear another agency has left the control of NAC. Sincerely, Richard A. Gaffney, President National Federation of the Blind of Rhode Island THE CHANGE by Betty Pacelli (Betty Pacelli is one of the leaders of the National Federation of the Blind of Connecticut.) Sixteen hundred fifty and more Federationists from every state in the nation sat quietly in a large, warm auditorium. Cool air slowly drifted down from the strategically placed vents, past heads and laps and finally to silent, sleepy dog guides sitting at their owner's feet. Had a leaf been floating down by chance, the ripple of air current would have been heard, the room was so silent. An air of sadness and loss mixed with elation and expectancy also prevailed in this auditorium. Today was the day--the long awaited, the dreaded, the never- could-happen day--when the old stepped down to make way for the new. At least there were no surprises in store. We knew what to expect, and we were ready. Once the vote was in and the president-elect was expected to officially take office at the end of the convention, we all settled back to business as usual. Then suddenly it was 5:00 p.m., Friday, July 5th, and the convention was over. He didn't say goodbye. He didn't make a speech. He just asked for forty-five seconds-- forty-five seconds to leave the hall. And we gave them to him--one second at a time--out loud amid tears and cheers. It can't be the same without him, and it shouldn't be. It will be better. Hasn't it been better every year? Why should that change now? Goodbye, Dr. Jernigan. We love you. CHERYL MCCASLIN VICTIMIZED BY STEREOTYPED MISCONCEPTIONS DISCRIMINATION COMES TO THE LIBRARY On Tuesday, September 30, 1986, an article appeared in the Dallas (Texas) Times Herald headlined: "Blind Librarian Asks for Chance in Face of Complaints to DISD." It brought into the open a case of blatant discrimination based on nothing more than superstition and a generalized public belief that the blind are not capable of performing competently. In August of this year Cheryl McCaslin (armed with credentials and good references) was employed as media center coordinator in a public school in Dallas, Texas. Cheryl is totally blind. School administrators say that parents are now protesting that a blind person cannot do the job and that consequently their children are being shortchanged. According to the article in the Times Herald there is no specific allegation of any shortcoming or inadequacy, merely the generalized expression of prejudice and fear of the dark--not their words but ours. As one studies the Times Herald article, it is not difficult to read between the lines. If school officials publicly express the belief that the librarian is incompetent and put her under constant surveillance, how is it possible for her to do the job? In such circumstances how can parents resist the suggestion that they protest and criticize? After all, are they not invited to do so? Indeed, are they not virtually told that if they do not criticize, they are demonstrating callous disregard for the welfare of their children? By their actions the school officials are insuring that their predictions of failure will become a reality. If there was ever a case of a self-fulfilling prophecy, this is surely it. This is not simply a local Dallas situation, nor is it merely a case involving Cheryl McCaslin. It involves all of us who are blind or who believe that the blind can compete on terms of equality and be first-class citizens. If these insidious attacks continue, the blind of the nation must respond. We are now strong enough through the vehicle of the National Federation of the Blind to resist such attempts to return to the days of medieval superstition and ancient concepts. One of the principal purposes for the existence of the National Federation of the Blind is to see that the blind have fair treatment and equal opportunity. It is not pity and charity which we seek but justice and equal protection under the law. We are taking this opportunity to alert the blind of the nation to the threat which the McCaslin case poses and the action which may be required. We will not sit passively by and permit Cheryl McCaslin's career to be ruined by people who have nothing more than ignorance of blindness to justify their behavior. Even if specific charges were now to be made, one would have to wonder whether those charges had not been trumped up to accomplish a predetermined objective. The article in the Dallas Times Herald underscores the urgent and continuing need for the National Federation of the Blind. Here it is in its entirety. It was brought to our attention by Doris Henderson, President of the Progressive Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Texas: ------------------- Blind Librarian Asks for Chance In Face of Complaints to DISD by David Fritze Staff Writer After the slow, traumatic failing of her eyesight, Cheryl McCaslin went completely blind in 1977 at age 29. But the Iowa school librarian persisted in her chosen profession and this August accepted a job as media center coordinator at C.F. Carr Elementary School in West Dallas. Her presence has sparked a flurry of complaints from parents whose children attend the school. A blind person cannot adequately handle a school librarian's job, they say. Administrators of the Dallas Independent School District find themselves caught between parental opinion and federal laws requiring special accommodation for disabled employees. School officials fear that removing or transferring McCaslin to another position may result in a civil rights action--a move McCaslin took against the Clarion, Iowa, school district after administrators fired her as a high school librarian. Administrators are attempting to determine whether McCaslin, even with the help of a full-time library aide hired specifically to assist her, can handle the job. Some have their doubts. "I just can't help but think those young people are being shortchanged," said Kathlyn Gilliam, Dallas school board member, who said she's received several complaints about McCaslin. "When you walk into the library and the person in charge doesn't even know you're standing there. . . I just wonder how effective that person can be," Gilliam said. McCaslin, 38, holds degrees in elementary education and library science, and says she can perform the job better than many people who are not blind. "I hope to be able to make (people) realize that just because I have a disability, that's not going to stop me," McCaslin said. School officials acknowledge McCaslin has sound references and good credentials, yet contend "it's very difficult for her to perform her duties. . .based on what we expect a media person to do," said Assistant Supt. H.B. Bell. "We're talking about a school with a lot of critical needs, and I don't know how to go about satisfying those needs with this person they've hired for me." Bell said parents of children at C.F. Carr have called administrators and the principal questioning whether "someone who is blind is capable of doing the job." He listed no specific complaints related to McCaslin's blindness. "It's a general perception," he said. Administrators have periodically visited the school at 1952 Bayside St. to observe McCaslin at work. Gilliam said during a visit she made two weeks ago, the aide hired to assist McCaslin appeared to perform most of the work and direct the students in activities. School officials also view the placement of McCaslin in C.F. Carr as a disregard for heightened educational needs of poor, minority students, who comprise the majority of the school. "I bet we wouldn't ever have attempted (to hire McCaslin) in a school in North Dallas, because folks wouldn't stand for that," Gilliam said. If McCaslin is transferred, "I'll just have to face the wrath of any group that comes down on me but the parents are coming down on me now," Bell said. McCaslin, who began losing her sight in 1973 because of diabetes, denies that she has allowed the library aide to do most of the work. "There are just certain things I want done, and she's the eyes," she said. McCaslin has started stamping library book cards and pockets with Braille titles, and claims that when she gets to know her surroundings she'll be able to retrieve books off shelves without the aide's assistance. She hopes to use cassette tapes and books printed in both English and Braille, as well as video recorders and other equipment, for teaching. "It may take me a while, but I'm going to do it," she said. From 1971 to 1982, McCaslin headed the media center at the Clarion Elementary and Junior High School, where "she had a pretty good program, really," said Kurt Weithorn, Clarion Elementary School principal. "As far as taking care of the library, getting materials out to the teachers and teaching classes, she was able to do that," he said. "I think it worked because students were familiar with her from the time she entered into the elementary school" and she held the job several years before losing her sight, he said. In 1982, the library position became part-time, and McCaslin filed a civil rights complaint with the Iowa State Education Association, claiming the school was trying to get rid of her because she was blind. The complaint went before the Clarion school board, but McCaslin later dropped the matter and took a full-time job at the Clarion High School's media center. Weithorn said the high school principal opposed the transfer, however, and after McCaslin began working, "it was just felt she couldn't do the job." McCaslin was fired after a year and filed another civil rights complaint, which "got to be kind of a nasty thing," Weithorn said. McCaslin, who moved to Texas in 1984 after receiving a fellowship to study library science at North Texas State University, contends she was dismissed because the principal disliked her and tended to treat her and other teachers unfairly. DISD administrators are afraid if they remove McCaslin from her position, she will file a similar lawsuit. "According to the law, when you hire the handicapped, you must make reasonable accommodation for the performance of a specific job," said Deberie Gomez, head of DISD personnel. "If in fact she's unable to perform, then we need to do something else." Jeff Pearcy, vice president of the Texas Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, warned that if DISD officials attempt to remove McCaslin, "they better have some very good evidence against her." McCaslin said she hopes a civil rights complaint will not be necessary but doesn't intend to resign. IF I HAD ONLY THOUGHT by Gary Wunder (The following article is excerpted from Gary Wunder's lead article in the May/June, 1986, issue of the Blind Missourian, the newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of Missouri.) Once I took an English course under a teacher I particularly wanted to impress. This special teacher did not believe in collecting papers every day. Assignments would be given daily but would be collected only once each week or so. My schedule was such that I had a study hall just before my English class. I did all my papers, but because the papers were not collected daily, I gave them to my reader and friend, who was also a member of the same class. I reasoned that he could hand in the papers when they were called for. Assignments were not always requested in the order they were done, and I knew of no way to hold them and hand them in. Near the end of the first quarter our teacher listed the number of total points available, the number of papers assigned, and the number of papers each of us had turned in. How well I remember listening with pride until the teacher said, "Gary Wunder, 14 out of 22, 8 papers missing." Eight of my papers were gone? Where? My friend didn't know. Perhaps they blew out of his notebook. Perhaps he left them at home. He just didn't know. One quarter wasn't enough. I went through four quarters always believing I would get a good grade, and always wondering just what had happened to me. What is so perplexing to me now is that I didn't think I could do anything about it. I was a helpless victim. Today this whole story sounds bizarre. I always carried a briefcase in school. I could have put seven folders in the case, one for each class. Each folder could have had a card attached to it with a Braille label. Each paper in the folder could also have had a card attached to it with the date the assignment was done and the number of the assignment if the teacher assigned them that way. I could then have turned in my own papers, kept track of them when they came back, and could have kept them to go over before major tests. I didn't do any of that because it simply did not occur to me that I had an alternative. WE CANE, WE TAUGHT, WE CONQUERED by Christine Roberts-Boone (Christine Roberts-Boone is President of the National Federation of the Blind of Nebraska. She is also an instructor at the Nebraska State Agency. Her account of the visit which she and her husband made to England last December appears in the Spring, 1986, issue of News from Blind Nebraskans, the publication of the National Federation of the Blind of Nebraska. It underscores the progress we are making and demonstrates the fact that certain parts of the more conservative American establishment are being left behind in progressive thinking.) As many of you know, in December of 1985, Doug and I traveled to England to participate in a seminar on the feasibility of blind persons' acting as cane travel instructors (or "mobility officers" as they are called in that country.) The invitation came about because of the interest and determination of a man named Allan Dodds, a senior Research Fellow in the Blind Mobility Research Unit at the University of Nottingham. In September, 1984, Dr. Dodds had paid a visit to our Nebraska agency to learn how it is that blind people here can teach cane travel. At that time I had the pleasure of meeting him and he spent a few days observing my travel classes and learning about NFB philosophy as it relates to the teaching of travel. Upon his return to the United Kingdom Dr. Dodds prepared a paper describing his experiences in Nebraska. It was then decided that a seminar should be held so that the issue could be thoroughly discussed. Dr. Dodds was able to convince the Royal National Institute for the Blind that it would be most helpful to have a practicing blind travel instructor present at this seminar, and I was lucky enough to be asked to attend. We arrived in London on Sunday, December 8th, and had time for sight- seeing before traveling to Nottingham on Tuesday where we spent a wonderful day with Dr. Dodds and his family. We took a tour of the University's Research Unit which was followed by a magnificent evening of entertainment in the historic heart of Nottingham. Early next morning we caught a train back to London and proceeded to the RNIB headquarters. Upon our arrival we met David Mann, immediate past President of the NFB of the United Kingdom. David was kind enough to invite us to dinner later in the week, and we enjoyed a delightful evening with him and his wife, Kate, in their London flat. Meanwhile, back at the RNIB, David showed us the canes which are used by blind travelers in Britain. There are three kinds of canes available, and the individual chooses one, depending upon the amount of vision he/she has. The "symbol cane" comes only as high as the person's waist and is used merely to identify oneself as "a person who cannot see very well." The "guide cane" comes midway between the waist and the sternum and is mainly used for identification as well. However, this cane is long enough to be used to find curbs and steps if that is necessary. The "long cane" reaches as high as the breastbone and it is used as a travel aid. People must hold this cane at arm's length in order to get any environmental information. Consequently, one looks a little odd walking down the street, arm stretched out ahead, cane wildly swinging. You see, these canes are still so short that they often do not touch the ground when they are in use. According to Kate Mann, many people do not want to use long canes, though they need them, because they feel so conspicuous when using them in the customary manner. Following our meeting with David the seminar began. It started with a coffee hour which afforded us an excellent opportunity to meet and get to know many of the people in attendance. Most of these people were "mobility officers" or "rehabilitation officers" from various locations throughout England. Nearly all of them were very open-minded with respect to blind people working as cane travel instructors. They were all amazed at the length of my cane and several times during the day I was approached with questions about how it was that I was able to travel about so freely. Even the best of the blind at this meeting spent much of their time going sighted guide. I must emphasize that this is not because they do not want independence or because they think it is recalcitrant to travel alone. Rather, they have never seen a blind person with little or no residual vision who was able to travel alone with any degree of success or grace. The seminar began with Dr. Dodds presenting his findings and asking some questions which had not been answered during his visit to Nebraska. He was followed by a man named Walter Thorton, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Mobility Center. Mr. Thornton is a blind man who received his travel training at the hands of Stan Suterko of the infamous University of Western Michigan. Mr. Thornton does not believe that it is good or safe for blind people to teach travel; however, his comments were far less damaging than we had feared they would be after reading some of his letters in the New Beacon magazine. I was given a chance to speak after Walter Thornton had finished, and during the buffet luncheon which followed Doug, and I fielded many more questions. In the afternoon there was time for public comment which was almost entirely supportive. In fact, there was only one woman who thought we were crazy even to consider such an idea; the audience was quick to express its displeasure with her position. Finally, Dr. Dodds, Walter Thornton, and I gave our final speeches and it was time to make a decision on what action, if any, was to be taken on the matter. At length, it was agreed upon that a blind travel instructor would be hired to work at the orientation center in the southern part of the country. This individual would, of course, be employed on a trial basis, but what a victory it was for the blind people of Britain! Much of the credit here must go to the people who came to our seminar with such open minds and with a genuine desire to learn and to share their ideas with us. Credit, thanks, and commendation also go to Allan Dodds, who truly shares our philosophy and our dream of independence for blind people. He has risked not a little in his continuing struggle to convince the English establishment that it is neither unreasonable nor impossible for a qualified and skilled blind person to work successfully as a mobility officer. Yes, this is only a beginning, but what a beginning it is--for all of us! REFLECTIONS ON INTEGRATION by Fred Schroeder (This article by Fred Schroeder entitled "From the President," appeared in the Spring/Summer, 1986 issue of The Blind Educator. As Federationists know, Fred Schroeder is the President of the National Association of Blind Educators. He is also Director of the New Mexico State Commission for the Blind and a member of the Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind.) As blind people, we have come to regard discrimination as an ongoing condition which threatens to deny us both social and economic opportunities. We have learned that the real problem of blindness is not the lack of eyesight, but the attitudes of society. We have also come to learn that we too are members of society and therefore can also become subject to the same beliefs and misconceptions about blindness which threaten to keep us isolated from true participation. For this reason, it is necessary to examine the ways in which we as blind people can effectively combat the conditioning of society. True integration is the goal and simply put, blind people seek this goal in two distinctly different ways. There are those who believe that acceptance by the majority can be gained through a denial of our differences. This kind of thinking leads to an emphasis on the use of residual vision and techniques which avoid addressing blindness as a reality. There are those who feel that traveling without a cane and avoiding Braille by relying heavily on memory make blind people appear more natural and better able to fit in. In truth, this approach can only result in placing the blind at a disadvantage, thereby reinforcing sterotypic misconceptions about blindness. It is not surprising that this approach is widely regarded as the "sensible" way of dealing with blindness. Whenever members of a minority group act out the stereotypes of society there inevitably results a level of acceptance. This type of acceptance arises from the unspoken agreement between society and the member of a minority group not to question the beliefs and attitudes about the capabilities of those in the minority. In other words, if the blind go along portraying themselves as society expects them, society will reward the blind person through kindness and goodwill. Although being the easier path, it is not possible for this type of acquiescence ever to lead to real equality. The other path therefore is one which requires that blind people cast off the stereotypic view and demand first-class status through full and meaningful participation. This can only be accomplished if we the blind learn to regard ourselves as equal members of society able to function competitively on terms of true equality. The difference is the conception of blindness which we ourselves hold. If we can regard blindness unemotionally as simply another characteristic, then we can develop pride in ourselves and the confidence to hold our own in a competitive world. It is this conception of blindness which enables us to regard the tools we need as symbols of equality rather than symbols of inferiority. Carrying a cane and reading Braille are tools which enable us fully to participate. If we regard blindness as respectable, then the tools of blindness become symbols of our equality. The issue of training in alternative techniques is really a question of the conception of blindness which we hold. There exists a widespread belief within the orientation and mobility profession that young blind children should not be taught cane travel. Instead, the orientation and mobility profession believes that young blind children should be taught a series of "precane techniques" which not surprisingly are rooted in age-old stereotypes about blindness. Precane techniques are nothing more than standardized methods whereby the blind feel their way timidly, shuffling their feet to find stairs and using their hands to find a clear path. They are rooted in stereotypes about blindness which can be traced back into antiquity. The belief that blind children should be taught cane travel is widely opposed since it arises from a belief that blind children can cast off the bonds of nonparticipation and integrate themselves actively and fully with their peers. The issue of teaching blind children cane travel is not a question of professional theory and methodology but in truth is a question of beliefs and attitudes about blindness. The real threat to the orientation and mobility profession is that if blind children become proficient at cane travel then they will have violated society's image of the blind as unable to compete. The article "Growing Up with Independence: The Blind Child's Use of the White Cane" (which appears elsewhere in this issue of the Monitor) discusses the need for blind children to acquire effective travel skills not as a technical discussion of efficiency but as a philosophical conviction that blind children must develop a sense of pride in themselves as blind people and with it the belief that they can achieve real integration and true equality. GROWING UP WITH INDEPENDENCE: THE BLIND CHILD'S USE OF THE WHITE CANE by Fred Schroeder (The following address was delivered at the Fall Convention of the National Federation of the Blind of California in Sacramento, California, on November 1, 1980.) My topic today pertains to blind children growing up with independence through the use of the white cane. As is often the case, this discussion stems from two divergent philosophies. On the one hand, the National Federation of the Blind believes that blind children are simply normal children who happen to be blind. The other is the view of the established special education system which believes that blind children are faced with a myriad of problems which, by their nature and severity, require professional intervention. Perhaps the motivation behind each philosophy comes from a particular vested interest on the part of each respective group. The National Federation of the Blind has a vested interest in furthering its goals of security, equality, and opportunity, which are integrally tied to the basic assumption of the normality of the blind. The established special education system has a vested interest in maintaining the concept of the blind as having a wide range of specialized needs since this concept is integrally tied to the very existence of the profession. Let us begin with a discussion of infancy. Sighted infants are typically encouraged to explore their environment. Parents, siblings, and relatives are continually providing stimulation which helps the infant become an active participant in his or her world. I believe that blind children deserve the same opportunity to develop experientially. When a blind child begins to walk, he or she should be provided with a light- weight flexible cane to be used in the exploration of his or her own environment--to seek out familiar toys and places of interest. The cane has long been recognized as a symbol of independence for the blind. Its use focuses the parents' attention on the development of the child's independence while alleviating many of the parents' concerns for the child's safety. "I am not, of course, advocating instructing a neonate in the formal "two-point touch" technique with an arc scribed precisely one inch to either side of the body and rising no more than one and a half inches at its highest point. What I am advocating is the notion that a blind child provided with the necessary tools will seek out new experiences and begin to explore the world. This will do more to develop space and body concepts than any other activity. "As the child grows he or she will naturally move to outdoor play. At this point, the cane should be an old and trusted companion. The orientation and mobility profession argues that a child using a cane at this age will develop a variety of bad habits which will interfere with the eventual development of good cane skills. They say that the child should first be instructed in "precane skills." But what are these precane skills? I suggest that trailing walls and "protective arm" techniques have very little to do with eventual effective use of the cane. If one is sincerely interested in providing experiences which will eventually result in good cane technique, then one should provide the very young blind child with a cane. When a six-year-old first grader begins learning to read and write, it is with an extensive background in "pre-reading" and "pre- writing" skills. This background is directly related to the final task. A two-year-old is not typically able to read, but is encouraged to sit on his or her mother's lap and follow along while a story is being read. Similarly, this same two-year-old is not yet able to write, but is, of course, encouraged to play with crayons. No one worries about the child's developing bad habits while the child experiments with a variety of ways of grasping crayons. Rather educators understand that the child's early play is helping to develop the fine motor control necessary for eventual writing. Why then does the orientation and mobility profession object to young blind children's using canes in an informal manner so as to develop the fine motor control necessary for effective cane travel? The orientation and mobility profession goes on to argue that the development of compensatory skills is seriously impeded by a young child's using a cane. Their claim is that if a child becomes "dependent" on the use of the cane, the child will not learn to use his or her hearing effectively. Alternatively they suggest the aforementioned precane techniques. One of these is the "upper-hand and forearm" technique which positions the hand and arm in front of the child in order to protect the head and face. While offering some limited protection the technique causes a definite muffling of the child's hearing. On the other hand, the tap of the cane provides an excellent sound source which I believe enhances the child's ability to interpret sounds in the environment. I recently spoke with an orientation and mobility specialist who has an additional year of training in the use of electronic travel aids. She advised that instead of a cane, a pathsounder should be used with young children. The pathsounder is a device which beeps when there is an object directly in front of the user. She explained that a young blind child using this device would be able to walk freely and without fear. Further, the child's ability to interpret environmental sounds would be developed through the feedback provided by this device. It does not appear that the pathsounder can offer the blind child any information which is not readily accessible to the child through the use of a cane. The cane enables a blind child to walk freely and without fear. In addition, the cane can be used to provide the child with feedback concerning the location of an opening or an obstacle. The information gathered through the use of a cane will certainly enable the child to learn to interpret sounds in the environment. The difference is that the cane is a natural extension of the arm and hand and, therefore, requires little in the way of sophisticated interpretation. If the cane touches a solid object it takes very little abstract reasoning to understand that there is something ahead. But what is there in a beep which would imply to a child that there is something blocking his or her path? The only plausible reason why the profession would advocate the use of a pathsounder in place of a cane is that the pathsounder requires training and, therefore, the intervention of a professional. As a result, parents are made to feel as though their children's special needs are so complex that they are inadequate to participate in their child's development. When the blind child reaches elementary school, the use of the cane would naturally extend to the playground. At this time, the child will take part in exciting new activities such as jumping rope, climbing on monkey bars and swinging on swings. This is also the time when a child needs to find a good place to keep his or her cane. When the child is finished playing he or she should be able to recover his or her cane independently. This is no different from the responsibilities normally assumed by other children of the same age. Sighted children are expected to be responsible for their belongings. In other words, a blind child should be responsible for his or her possessions as are his or her sighted peers. As the blind child reaches junior high school, he or she should be able to take for granted the ability to travel independently. Unfortunately, this is about the age at which most orientation and mobility specialists believe cane travel instruction should begin. The child is generally provided with some basic instruction which is not designed to develop his travel skills overall, but rather to solve the immediate problem of getting from and to class. Rarely does the child ever evolve beyond the stage of traveling memorized routes. The age old stereotype of the blind person's being on a memorized path is one from which the orientation and mobility profession has been unable to rid itself. The orientation and mobility profession does not fully believe in a blind person's ability to travel safely with a white cane. Otherwise, why would the profession insist upon using new electronic travel aids as an adjunct to the cane or in some cases as a substitute for the cane. An orientation and mobility specialist from the Midwest typically instructs her junior high and high school students in the use of the laser cane. During a lengthy discussion she was unable to explain what practical advantage the laser cane had over an ordinary cane. Her only concrete reason for encouraging the use of the laser cane was that it could be used as an "icebreaker" in social situations. In other words, for the sake of social contact, the blind child should be willing to make a spectacle of him or herself. It is clear that she does not believe in the ability of blind children to initiate the process of making friends. Her comment implied that the blind child must use flashy electronic gadgets in order to be interesting or attractive. In addition, I question the effectiveness of the laser cane, particularly in the Midwest since it will not operate in temperatures below 30 degrees. It is further limited by being inoperative during rain or snow. The manufacturer explains that in these situations the cane can be turned off and used as an effective long cane. One has to wonder if the cane can be effective with the electronics shut off, why were the cane's beeps and vibrations needed in the first place? We have come full circle, returning once again to my original point. When I speak of growing up with independence I mean just that--true independence. When the orientation and mobility profession speaks of independence the term ordinarily carries with it the unspoken qualification, "as independent as a blind person can reasonably be expected to be." The orientation and mobility profession's custodial attitudes are shown all too clearly in an article entitled, "The Electronic Car Controversy" which appeared in the Summer 1980 edition of News and Views, the publication of the American Association of Workers for the Blind. The article reads in part as follows: -------------------- The Northeastern Region Interest Group IX has become concerned with electronic cars as a potential barrier to independent travel for visually impaired people. With the exception of the noise produced by the friction of the tires against the pavement while the car is moving, electric cars are completely silent.... Although the problem of inaudible cars may well affect a number of populations (older pedestrians, the hearing impaired, and children) the Northeastern Chapter Interest Group IX feels that a number of issues that impact specifically on visually impaired travelers must be addressed on a national level. Implications for both street crossing procedure and safety as well as parking lot and gas station negotiations are many. Considerations also exist in terms of training procedures for traffic alignment and environmental analysis.... One company has gone so far as to include a notation in their owner's manual and on a label in the car alerting drivers to safety factors for vision and hearing-impaired pedestrians. Beyond this, manufacturers have offered to provide the public with "sensors" which could be worn on a lapel and operate as a "go-no go" device, emitting some sort of signal when an electric vehicle comes within range of the sensor. Our objections to this are: first, a very small percentage of the general population could effectively use such a high technology device and secondly, the burden of responsibility for safety in traffic should rest on the driver and not on the visually impaired traveler.... -------------------- It is interesting to note that the orientation and mobility profession does not consider it to be within the blind traveler's capabilities to protect him or herself from the threat of electronic cars. They argue that an electronic sensor which beeps when an electronic car is near, is too complicated a device to be of practical benefit for the blind. What a revealing comment, clearly highlighting the profession's attitude that the blind are both defenseless and witless. Instead, they would ask the blind to trust their safety to the driver, secure in the knowledge that on the dashboard of the electronic car is a statement cautioning the driver to be mindful of the presence of blind pedestrians. It will take a long time to change society's views of blindness and for that matter the views of the orientation and mobility profession. It is clear that a change, however slow, must come. Those of us who have grown up as blind children understand the negative impact which these attitudes have had on our lives. We have experienced the heartache of being left behind and the degradation of being taken along by brothers and sisters who were forced to be unwilling caretakers. The tragedy is not that of blindness, but rather the ease with which, in the past, we and society have sold ourselves short. Blindness did not isolate us, but rather our inability to travel as others. To participate in society was to be at society's mercy--to accept gratefully the opportunity to be brought along, if not included. No professional pride or theoretical dogma should be allowed to isolate and degrade blind children in the future. No one has the right to rob another of his or her self-respect by imposing arbitrary limitations. We must claim for the blind children of today and those of tomorrow the right to grow up with dignity and experience life to the fullest. JUSTICE FOR JACKIE . . . NOW In the November, 1985, issue of the Braille Monitor we carried an article entitled "No Justice for Jackie . . . Yet--But the Battle Has Just Begun." In that article we told the story of Jackie Galloway, a blind woman from Port Townsend, Washington. She went to a local theater with her two daughters and two grandchildren on a Saturday afternoon (to be exact, it was March 9, 1985) to see "Pinocchio"--about as innocent an act as one could hope to find; as American as apple pie. But that is not how it ended. She was told by the theater owner that she could not come in unless she left her guide dog outside. She was humiliated at the scene which was caused and embarrassed and frightened at the confrontation. Moreover, at that time she was not only not a Federationist but had never heard of the organization. Nevertheless, she knew what was right and stood her ground. Finally, after being badgered and subjected to verbal abuse by the theater owner (a Mr. Wiley), she left in tears. Contact was made with the Federation, and Jackie Galloway and the organized blind of Washington set out to see that justice was done. We demanded that Mr. Wiley be prosecuted under Washington's White Cane Law. But the public prosecutor (a friend of Mr. Wiley's) wouldn't bring charges. We persisted. It took a demonstration in Port Townsend, an intensified public education campaign, and a lawsuit--but we were determined to have justice. In the November, 1985, Braille Monitor we were compelled to begin with the headline "No Justice for Jackie...Yet." However, that was a year ago, and as we have so often observed, we have a way of persisting until we achieve our objective. We can now report: "Justice for Jackie." In the Fall, 1986, Blind Washingtonian (the newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of Washington) Ben Prows writes as follows: -------------------- Galloway Case Upholds White Cane Law Wiley Not So Wiley Anymore by Ben Prows Federationists from throughout Washington and Oregon will long remember a protest march held on July 20, 1985. We marched in Port Townsend to protest against the barring of Jackie Galloway and her dog guide Lassie from the Uptown Theater by theater owner Mr. Richard Wiley. We will remember the months of battles to get the county prosecutor to uphold the White Cane Law by bringing charges against Mr. Wiley. We will remember the prosecutor's refusal to do his duty as a public official, forsaking the people and the law for a friend. We will remember the day when Jackie Galloway stood up for her rights as a blind citizen and brought suit in civil court to recover at least some of the damage she suffered as a result of Mr. Wiley's arrogant disregard for the law. We will remember the long months of waiting for a court date, and the disappointment of delays in the trial for one reason or another. We will also remember that Jackie stood up to the town and hung in there despite some criticism and attacks from some sectors of the community. Most of all, we will remember the day in July, 1986, when Jackie had her trial. The judge directed the jury to find that the White Cane Law had been violated by Mr. Wiley. The jury also found that Mr. Wiley was negligent in his treatment of Mrs. Galloway an awarded Jackie $6,550 in damages. This is a victory not only for Jackie Galloway but for all blind people of this state and throughout the nation. It took an attorney such as Bill Knebes who understood the issue to convince the judge and jury that Jackie Galloway must be treated as a first-class citizen. If Mr. Wiley had gotten away with a violation of the White Cane Law, you can rest assured that other owners of public accommodations would have followed suit. Jackie Galloway is not only a first- class citizen but an example of a first- class Federationist. Though there is no chapter in Port Townsend and though there are few blind persons in the town, Jackie hung in there and fought for her rights. She persisted. She won a victory for herself and a victory for the blind. The NFB provided technical assistance and support to Jackie throughout the ordeal. Scott Lewis, a long-time Federationist from Port Angeles, was instrumental in providing information for Mr. Knebes and keeping in contact with Jackie. Bob Eschbach came to Port Townsend to be an expert witness since he is the national chairman of the Dog Guide Committee and a national Board Member. The testimony that Mr. Eschbach and Mrs. Galloway gave destroyed Mr. Wiley's claim that safety prevented him from letting the dog into the theater. The Jackie Galloway case again demonstrates the will of the blind to live normal, productive lives as equal partners with their sighted peers. Jackie Galloway has now discovered the National Federation of the Blind and says that she hopes to be at the state convention in October in Vancouver. The case is just another reason "Why the National Federation of the Blind." ACB'S FAST-FOOD FIASCO: HERE'S THE LATEST CHAPTER by James Gashel Early in 1984 the National Federation of the Blind led a very successful campaign to prevent the General Services Administration from violating the Randolph-Sheppard Act. The issue involved the installation of fast-food restaurants in federal buildings in violation of the priority accorded to blind vendors by the Randolph-Sheppard Act to operate such facilities. Among other things our protest took the form of petitioning and picketing at the headquarters building of the U. S. Department of Education since that agency is responsible for keeping the other federal agencies in line concerning the blind priority requirements of the law. The American Council of the Blind (ACB) did not join out protest. In fact, they complained because we were trying to get the rules changed. In November of 1984 the ACB and others (including the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, representing agency directors) filed two suits in the federal district court for the District of Columbia. Casper W. Weinberger, the Secretary of Defense, was the principal defendant named in both suits. The contention of the ACB and the agencies was that the Department of Defense (DOD) had violated the Randolph-Sheppard Act by signing contracts with McDonald's and Burger King to open and operate fast- food restaurants at Army and Navy bases worldwide. Of course, some of the locations would be in the United States. Therefore, the states where these fast- food restaurants were located, priority should have been given to the blind over the fast-food giants. The Council and its cohorts asked the court to grant a permanent injunction voiding the Department of Defense contracts with McDonald's and Burger King. As we said at the time, that was a mistake. Given the complexity of the issues presented to the court, it was about the shortest lawsuit on record. In January of 1985 summary judgment was given in favor of the Defense Department and the fast-food chains. Moreover, the court went beyond the question at issue and made pronouncements jeopardizing the entire Randolph- Sheppard program. An appeal from the lower court decision was made by ACB and the others who brought the ill-fated case, and we were faced with a dilemma. If we entered the case, we risked losing credibility by keeping such company, and if we did not enter, the appeal might be handled so badly that every blind vendor in the country would suffer the consequences. Under the circumstances we had no choice. We filed a motion to enter the case as an amicus. The American Council of the Blind and the fast-food chains stood together in opposing our entrance into the case, but the court decided against them. We filed our brief. The position we took in the court of appeals was clear. The dispute over the Department of Defense contracts should never have been heard in the federal district court (or in any court) in the first place. It was brought to the court by the wrong parties, for the wrong reasons, resulting in the wrong decision. Everything about it was wrong. Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act a state agency for the blind may file a complaint with the Secretary of Education whenever the agency finds that a federal agency (such as the Department of Defense) is violating the Randolph- Sheppard Act. Having received such a complaint, the Secretary of Education is then required to convene an arbitration panel. It is the arbitration panel in the first instance (not the court) that must hear complaints of federal agency violations of the Randolph-Sheppard Act. But the ACB and its co-plaintiffs went straight to the federal court, bypassing the arbitration procedure available to aggrieved state agencies--the very arbitration procedure which we have repeatedly used with success to win victories for blind vendors. The district court should have dismissed the case in the first place. Better yet, the court should have granted a preliminary injunction to allow time for arbitration of any state agency complaints resulting from the Department of Defense contracts. But this is not what the American Council of the Blind and the agencies were asking the court to do. They wanted a permanent injunction against the Department of Defense, totally bypassing the arbitration. We pointed this out to the court of appeals and explained that the court should not actually consider the merits of any dispute arising under the Randolph- Sheppard Act until the arbitration mechanism has been used. The law gives any party to the arbitration the right to appeal the decision to the courts for judicial review, following the arbitration. That, we told the court, is the way the law is intended to work--and the appeals court agreed. On June 13, 1986, the decision was issued in our favor. In contrast to ACB's loss in the district court, the appeals court did not uphold the McDonald's and Burger King contracts. In fact, the appeals court reopened the question as to whether the contracts are valid and reserved the judgment on that point. The lower court's decision is now nullified. The court of appeals properly found that the district court never should have accepted jurisdiction over this matter in the beginning. Any state agency aggrieved by the Department of Defense contracts could have requested arbitration. Meanwhile, the court could consider halting the contracts with a preliminary injunction. That would be the proper course of action under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, the appeals court ruling said. Perhaps one should never be shocked by the behavior of the American Council of the Blind. Nevertheless, their behavior with respect to the decision of the appeals court is just that, shocking. They consider the appeals court decision to be another smashing defeat for blind vendors, branding it as a "poorly reasoned decision." (See the following article entitled "Fast-Food War Continues Between Vendors and Defense Department" by Lynn Abbott, reprinted from the Braille Forum, July-August, 1986.) How can a decision which nullifies a devastating defeat and re- establishes the legal status of the blind vendor priority be labeled "poorly reasoned?" It is true that the appeals court did not grant ACB's request for a reversal of the lower court decision, ruling instead that the position we took was correct--but surely the objective should have been to improve the lot of blind vendors, not to make points or gain prestige. In the article that follows, the ACB can speak for itself. However, readers should realize that the court of appeals decision (which the ACB now complains of) has absolutely erased the damaging precedent earlier established by ACB's unnecessary and disastrous loss in the district court. Rather than complaining about the court's reasoning, the American Council of the Blind should be sending thank-you notes to the judges for bailing out the blind vendors. Of course, they should probably also be sending a few thank-you notes to the Federation, but that is obviously a bit much to expect. Any state that wants to do so can now use arbitration to contest the Department of Defense contracts. That right would have been precluded and lost altogether under the district court's ruling. Moreover, states may be able to block the Defense Department's fast-food installations with injunctions during the arbitrations. This is what ACB now calls a further loss and vows to fight with further appeals to the courts. One can only hope to be preserved from the blessings of such further appeals. Here in its entirety is the article which appeared in the July-August, 1986, Braille Forum: -------------------- FAST-FOOD WAR CONTINUES BETWEEN VENDORS AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENT by Lynn Abbott, Legal Assistant The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 13, 1986, issued a decision in the controversial (controversial is an understatement) Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America, et al, v. Casper W. Weinberger, et al, case. The vendors, joined by the American Council of the Blind, the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, Blinded Veterans Association, Inc., and two individual plaintiffs sought to reverse a lower court determination which found the awarding of fast-food contracts to McDonald's and Burger King by the Departments of the Army and Navy to be legal, in spite of certain provisions of the Randolph- Sheppard Act. The Court of Appeals opinion, authored by District Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer (sitting on the Court of Appeals panel along with Circuit Judges Abner J. Mikva and Robert H. Bork), stated that no decision had been made on the merits of the case because the plaintiffs did not pursue administrative relief prior to seeking a judicial determination. In other words, the court declared that the plaintiffs did not "exhaust administrative remedies." Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the lower Court's judgment and ordered the District Court to dismiss the case. As stated above, the dispute began in 1984 when the Army and Air Force Exchange Service awarded a fast-food contract to Burger King and the Navy signed a similar contract with McDonald's. Because Randolph-Sheppard vendors were excluded from the bidding process, the above-named plaintiffs expressed their concern that such actions by the Department of Defense were in violation of the Randolph- Sheppard Act. [Note how the filing of lawsuits is now described as "the plaintiffs expressed their concern...." No doubt another understatement. Now back to the article.] Under the Randolph- Sheppard Act, it is mandated that state licensing agencies be notified of, and that blind persons receive priority in, competitive solicitations for cafeteria contracts on Federal property. [Another note, and this is typical of the problems with ACB's lawsuits: It is not "mandated" in the Randolph-Sheppard Act that there be any form of "competitive solicitations" for cafeteria contracts on federal property. The Act requires a priority without competition. Competitive bidding is only something that administrative regulations have permitted, not required. Here again, though, the Council is misstating the law in a manner which hurts blind vendors. No wonder we have problems. Now back to the article.] In this instance, not only did the Defense Department neglect to notify the state licensing agency of its action, but the Department also decided not to consult with the Secretary of Education regarding a determination of whether any state licensing agency would be able to provide the desired food service. Even the District Court recognized that the Defense Department's "insensitivity to the plight of the blind vendors is deplored...." Both actions resulted in the denial of opportunities for blind vendors to apply for either of the two contracts in question. Because the Randolph-Sheppard Act contains provisions which establish a grievance and arbitration process to resolve disputes, it is generally necessary to initiate proceedings at the administrative level. However, courts nationwide have determined that if "any resort to arbitration would have been futile," it would be permissible to bypass the usual administrative procedures by filing for judicial relief directly. In fact, when presented with this issue in District Court, the lower court determined that the arbitration indeed would have been futile. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower court and stated that it would not be proper for the courts to determine the complex issues of the case before the matter went to arbitration. [Note: Ah! Is the ACB now saying that they would rather have the district court's decision? At least that decision upheld their theory of bypassing the arbitration. But the balance of the decision was an unmitigated disaster. Would the ACB like to have it back in effect just for the sake of saying that we can bypass arbitration? How can you tell?] The American Council of the Blind and the other plaintiffs intend to pursue this matter further [Note: Oh my!] both legally and administratively. [Note: Is this blustering a warning to the court or to the blind? Probably to both, but it certainly is blustering.] The Court of Appeals' poorly reasoned decision cannot remain unchallenged, and the Defense Department's blatant disregard of the Randolph-Sheppard Act will not be tolerated. [So says the Council.] ANOTHER STEP TOWARD VICTORY IN THE RALEIGH WORKSHOP CASE On October 10, 1986, a Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordered the opening and counting of the ballots in a union representation case involving blind and sighted production workers at the Raleigh Lions Clinic for the Blind, Inc., in North Carolina. Three years ago the ballots in question had been placed in a safe at the NLRB regional offices, where they had remained pending the outcome of an appeal. It all started in 1983 when a "Decision and Direction of Election" was issued by the same Regional Director of the NLRB, finding that the Raleigh Lions Clinic is an "employer" as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, and that the blind people who work in the sheltered workshop of the Clinic are "employees" under the Act. Therefore, the Regional Director decided that the employees were entitled to vote on having a union to represent them. The ballots were actually cast, but the results are still an official secret because the Clinic filed an appeal to have the Regional Director's Decision reviewed by the full five-member National Labor Relations Board in Washington. The appeal would cause a delay if not a reversal, a typical employer strategy in such cases. In like manner, the October 10, 1986, Decision has also been appealed by the employer. The Regional Director's Decision came in response to a specific directive from the Board ordering a further regional review. The Board wanted the Regional Director to reconsider his 1983 Decision in light of two NLRB Decisions issued on June 27, 1986. Both cases (discussed in this article) provide precedents for deciding on appeals such as Raleigh. All of this legal mumbo-jumbo and the passing of decisions back and forth from Raleigh to Washington and back to Raleigh comes down to the fact that the Raleigh case is now very much alive and well. The Board's recent decisions in the two similar (but at first glance apparently unrelated) cases seem to have broken the log jam. The decisions involve nonprofit groups with close ties to governmental agencies that are exempt from the National Labor Relations Act. This is actually right on point with Raleigh. In the Raleigh case the Lions Clinic management has been arguing that the agency is fully under the control of the State of North Carolina. This is a new twist by which a workshop tries to secure an exemption from collective bargaining. Apparently the theory is that if the workshop (private and nongovernment) claims that it is controlled by a governmental entity (such as a state agency for the blind, which is legally exempt), the workshop (which is not legally exempt) can ride along on the state agency's coattails. At least that is what the Raleigh shop managers are obviously hoping. The control, they allege, comes from an agreement between the Raleigh Lions Clinic and the state Division of Services for the Blind, providing that vocational rehabilitation clients of the state agency can receive rehabilitation and work adjustment training at the Raleigh Lions Clinic. The state pays the clinic for these services. But the arrangement is much like a regular business deal between two firms, one of which purchases goods or services from the other or subcontracts work to it. That does not mean that one company is necessarily controlled by the other. They are simply making a normal business arrangement. And so it is with the Raleigh Lions Clinic and the state of North Carolina. The managers at the Raleigh Lions Clinic, not the officials of North Carolina government, decide who will be hired in the workshop and, for that matter, who will be fired. The managers at the Clinic (not the state) determine what wages will be paid to blind and sighted production employees. The managers (not the state) decide about vacation time, sick leave policy, insurance plans, employee discipline procedures, appeal rights, and all other personnel policies. If the plant is to have a layoff, workshop management (not the state) decides who will go and who will stay. Product lines, marketing strategies, and all other aspects of the plant's production and sales operation are determined by the managers of the Clinic, not by the state. These are the factors which the regional director took into account in deciding the original case. These will doubtless also be the factors which the full National Labor Relations Board will be taking into account when they decide on the merits of the workshop's appeal from the October 10, 1986, decision by the regional director. At a hearing on September 16, 1986, the chief of rehabilitation for the North Carolina Division of Services for the Blind testified under oath before an NLRB hearing officer in Raleigh that the Raleigh Lions Clinic (not the state of North Carolina) controls all of the hiring, compensation, and personnel practices which might be the subject of collective bargaining at the Clinic. Even on the matter of an employee grievance procedure (which the state agency had found deficient in two respects) the rehabilitation chief testified that his division was powerless to order specific changes of policy and compel the Clinic's acceptance of them. In theory the state could cease buying any services from the Raleigh Lions Clinic, but even that would not necessarily control the Clinic's policies. It would only mean that the state would no longer have a business relationship with the Clinic. In the two NLRB cases that are now being compared to Raleigh the nonprofit agencies involved were operating under much greater controls by exempt governmental entities. Even so, the NLRB took jurisdiction in one case and declined to do so in the other. The case in which jurisdiction was declined involved a federally sponsored Job Corps center operating under contract with the United States Department of Labor. In this case the Department of Labor maintained budget control over the contracting agency and reserved the right to approve or disapprove the agency's hiring decisions and policies. Virtually all of the decisions which could be made by the Job Corps Center were subject to Department of Labor veto. That would also be true of a collective bargaining agreement. Under the circumstances the NLRB declined to apply the National Labor Relations Act to the Job Corps Center because of the federal government's overriding control. But following a similar analysis of the elements of control, the NLRB decided to assert jurisdiction over a privately operated home for wayward youth despite the fact that the home was licensed and supervised to some degree by the state of Maryland. The distinction was that the home (not the state) determined budget and spending practices. Salaries and fringe benefits were not subject to state approval. The home (not the state) had full discretion in hiring and dismissal decisions. The state's involvement was to license and inspect the home and to pay costs associated with housing and caring for the residents. Even though the sole purpose for the home was to provide residential care and supervision of wayward youth on behalf of the state of Maryland, the NLRB took jurisdiction over a group of the home's employees because the control exercised by the state was insufficient to make collective bargaining meaningless. The control of the state of North Carolina over the Raleigh Lions Clinic is even less than in the case of the Maryland youth home. This is why there is every reason for us to feel that after all appeals are heard, the final outcome in the Raleigh Case will be positive. But a long struggle lies ahead. The Raleigh Lions Clinic has again appealed and will doubtless drag the matter out as long as it can. More time will be exhausted in delays as the workshop managers continue to hope that we will give up and go away. But the resolve of the blind of North Carolina and the nation to remain firm and united on behalf of the workers in Raleigh will strengthen (not diminish) as the months go by. This is a battle which the National Federation of the Blind has been fighting for a long time. In 1983 when the blind workers at the Raleigh Lions Clinic found conditions unbearable, we came to their assistance and pledged our commitment. The initial decision by the regional director of NLRB was favorable to us, but the workshop management appealed. Now, we have had a second favorable decision--and once again management has appealed. But time is running out for them. The vice will close. The pressure will be in inexorable. The blind of Raleigh will have justice, and it will be made possible because of the determination of the National Federation of the Blind. We want no strife or confrontation, but we will do what we have to do. We are simply no longer willing to be second- class citizens. JOSEPH O'HARA FORCED OUT IN MISSOURI by Kenneth Jernigan When Tom Stevens was fired as head of the Bureau for the Blind in Missouri in 1984, the man who was leading the parade in making the charges of "conflict of interest" was Joseph O'Hara, the head of the Division of Family Services, which was the parent agency of the Bureau. In the name of integrity and protecting the interests of the state, O'Hara sanctioned locking Stevens out of his office, searching his desk, and various other questionable tactics. O'Hara said that because Stevens had purchased white canes from the National Federation of the Blind (canes which could be had nowhere else and which were sold to the state at a subsidized price) Stevens was guilty of a "conflict of interest." Only a year later O'Hara, who by now had been promoted to the position of head of the Department of Social Services (the super agency in which the Division of Family Services was housed), was having second thoughts and trying to find a way to settle the lawsuits which his actions had spanned. It will be remembered that the state of Missouri apologized for its behavior and paid $10,000 toward the expenses of the 1985 NFB convention. Throughout all the questionable shenanigans which occurred in Missouri in 1984 and 1985 O'Hara constantly emphasized the necessity for avoiding even the appearance of impropriety by state officials. Yet, what about O'Hara's own personal behavior? It now develops that his "conflict of interest" (unlike the one he trumped up and never proved against Tom Stevens) was very real and very serious. In 1979 he and his wife established a private company which was allegedly established "to conduct scientific research in the area of human behavior and social welfare." All of that fancy double-talk translates into attempts to get $100,000 fees from private facilities seeking government aid which could only be granted with the sanction of a particular state department--the one, it just so happened, headed by Joseph O'Hara. In 1986 O'Hara was exposed and decided to "resign." One is never happy to learn that a government official who has been trusted with the responsibility of administering important programs and setting an example for others to follow has failed the test of public scrutiny, but the blind of Missouri and the nation are certainly not sorry to see O'Hara go. Here are the newspaper accounts of his so-called "resignation": -------------------- ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1986 Official Endorsed Plan For His Firm by Terry Ganey Jefferson City--Joseph J. O'Hara, director of the Missouri Department of Social Services, gave the department's official endorsement earlier this year to a federal grant application that would have employed a private company headed by O'Hara. As department director, O'Hara recommended approval of a $4.9 million grant request made by the owners of a troubled St. Louis nursing home to the U.S. Health Care Financing Administration. If the grant had been approved, Humanalysis, Inc., a research firm based in Jefferson City, would have been paid more than $300,000 over five years to evaluate the performance of the project sponsored by the nursing home. When the request was made, state records show O'Hara was the president of Humanalysis, and his wife, Denise F. Polit, was listed as vice president. The non-profit corporation was formed in 1979 to "conduct scientific research in the area of human behavior and social welfare." O'Hara said Wednesday that he had relinquished his position with the company last month after conferring with deputies of Gov. John D. Ashcroft. O'Hara said the grant application had not been designed to generate business for Humanalysis, but to help the Northview Village Care Center, 2415 North Kingshighway, meet its obligations to the elderly poor and to the state. The Department of Social Services, the state's largest agency, enforces laws designed to protect patients in nursing homes and dispenses the Medicaid reimbursement payments for the care of the poor. "We send lots of letters endorsing grant requests," O'Hara said. "It was not inappropriate for the agency to make this endorsement. The fact that the owners of this facility sought out my wife's firm did not enter into it. This agency had a legitimate interest in seeing a proposal funded that would help this particular business stay in operation." He said Ewing Gourley, a financial consultant for Northview Village, had asked Polit to prepare the grant request. Gourley is a former director of the state Division of Family Services. O'Hara said that if the grant had been approved, it would have allowed Northview to collect $20 more per patient per day--a 40 percent increase--in Medicaid Payments. He noted that Northview had been having financial troubles, including difficulty meeting mortgage payments on a $2 million loan from the Missouri Housing Development Commission. Federal demonstration grants require evaluations of the project being funded. Northview's grant request said the evaluation would be conducted by Humanalysis. "In order to ensure that an objective third party will be responsible for determining the success of the demonstration, the proposed project will be evaluated by an independent contractor, Humanalysis, Inc.," the grant application said. It was accompanied by a budget that showed Humanalysis would be paid $311,402. Polit prepared the grant application late last year. "The work itself did not strike me as having a conflict of interest as long as the state was not making the award directly to me," Polit said. "In general, I have avoided seeking to work for the state. I have felt having Joe being the head of the department has been an obstacle to doing work in this state." O'Hara's letter recommending approval was written January 3. Michael Spodnick, an official in the Health Care Financing Administration's research and demonstration office in Baltimore, said Wednesday that Northview's application was at first rejected. Spodnick said the applicant had to be the state agency and not the nursing home itself. When the second application was filed 10 days later--this time naming the Social Services Department as the applicant--O'Hara ordered the reference to Humanalysis deleted from the grant application. Spodnick said Wednesday that the state withdrew its grant request last month because of troubles at Northview. The federal government announced June 12 it would stop all Medicare and Medicaid payments for patients at Northview because of problems with the home. The Missouri Division of Aging accused the home in May of violating state regulations and endangering the health, safety, and welfare of the residents. It ordered 25 of the 362 residents removed from the home as soon as possible. O'Hara said he became aware last month that questions regarding Humanalysis were being raised in the state capital. He said he had informed Chuck Miller, Ashcroft's lawyer, and Richard McClure, the governor's chief of staff, of the situation. O'Hara said after meeting with them it was decided that he should discontinue being president of the corporation. -------------------- JEFFERSON CITY POST TRIBUNE AUGUST 27, 1986 Editorials Social Disservice A ray of sunshine has peeked through the thunderstorm brewing over Jefferson City. Joseph O'Hara is resigning as director of the state Department of Social Services; for him, the decision is not a moment too soon. O'Hara claims strong conflict of interest charges had no bearing on his decision; if that's true, he had no business serving as head of a state agency in the first place. The charges and allegations grew in weight and severity on Wednesday. Earlier in the day, state Auditor Margaret Kelly joined the ranks of the suspicious and demanded Governor Ashcroft review O'Hara's apparent misuse of his position. Look at the record: --O'Hara and his wife had formed Humanalysis, Inc., a Jefferson City firm that does research in social work and received support services from the Department of Social Services. --While serving as social services director, O'Hara also was president of Humanalysis and even signed documents as president requesting a federal family planning grant. And in his official capacity he approved a federal grant to a nursing home firm that netted his company a fee of more than $100,000. --O'Hara used his state telephone number as a contact point for Humanalysis, Inc. on documents related to the same grant application. --As the potential for scandal grew, he resigned as president of Humanalysis--but remains the registered agent. None of that is conflict of interest? In announcing the resignation, Governor Ashcroft alluded to O'Hara's "successful management" of the state's burgeoning welfare agency during "times of fiscal constraint." Unfortunately, that successful management was equally applicable to his own company. We have nothing against state officials delving in the realm of free enterprise, but there are limits on such outside interests. One is integrity. When an individual accepts the responsibility of guiding a state agency, he has to be willing to put the state's interests above his own and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Joseph O'Hara apparently did not. CONGRESS PASSES AN AIRLINE BILL: DISCRIMINATION MAY BE COMING TO AN END by Marc Maurer Members of Congress in increasing numbers have been joining our battle to end discrimination against the blind on commercial airlines. This is shown by letters from key Congressmen and Senators to the Department of Transportation. The Federal Register notice which we reprinted in the October issue of the Braille Monitor takes note of the high volume of correspondence from Congress to the Department of Transportation on behalf of the blind. So the government, slow to respond as it may be, is finally waking up to the fact that airlines are discriminating against the blind. Getting the government's attention is one thing, of course--but finding a lasting solution is something else entirely. However, that long desired solution may soon be at hand as the result of a bill recently passed by Congress and signed by President Reagan on October 3, 1986. The new law (Public Law 99-435) states: "No air carrier may discriminate against any otherwise qualified handicapped individual, by reason of such handicap, in the provision of air travel." This is an important new declaration of federal policy, which we can now use in our battle to be treated as equals by the airlines. But like most laws, the policy declaration alone does not answer all of the questions. Congress was clearly concerned that discrimination is occurring on the airlines. Also, there was no Federal law on the books adequate to prohibit the discriminatory acts. In June the Supreme Court said that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (a general prohibition of discrimination against the handicapped by federally assisted programs) does not apply to most airlines. Regulations to carry out Public Law 99-435 will now be made by the Department of Transportation. The new regulation may clarify to some extent which acts are discriminatory and which are not. But don't count on firm answers from the regulations either. Only as we use the new law by applying it in particular circumstances--then (and only then) will we truly know that an end to discrimination against the blind by the airlines is at hand. The official statements made by Senators and Congressmen as they debated and passed the legislation will be looked to both by the Department of Transportation and by the courts. Laws are interpreted by reading the Congressional intent whenever Congress has made its wishes known. In this case we, too, must understand what Congress expects from the airlines and from the federal regulators. Therefore, we are reprinting here several relevant excerpts from the Congressional Record. In the first discussion Senator Howard Metzenbaum (Democrat from Ohio) and Senator Dole (Republican from Kansas and Senate majority leader) take note of the discriminatory procedures which some airlines have engaged in under existing Federal Aviation Regulations. Senator Dole was the chief sponsor of the airline bill. For this reason it is highly significant that he responded to Senator Metzenbaum unequivocally in saying that airline procedures must conform to the legal mandate of nondiscrimination. Further, Senator Dole stated that the Federal Aviation Administration (not the airlines individually) will decide which procedures are (or are not) required for safety. In this connection it should be noted that the current safety regulations of the FAA have no limits on the seating of blind passengers. That is something which the airlines have sought to enforce on their own. Under the new policy of nondiscrimination, will the FAA be willing to enforce the airlines' seating limitations? That will be one of the more challenging issues to be resolved. But it will be resolved. We are now closer to victory than we have ever been, backed by a new law that decrees that the airlines must have a nondiscrimination policy by the airlines. Here is what Senator Metzenbaum and Senator Dole said about what they intend the new law to do: -------------------- In the Senate of the United States August 15, 1986 Mr. Metzenbaum. Mr. President, in order that the intent of S. 2703, the Air Carrier Access Act, may be clarified, I wish to make an inquiry of the distinguished majority leader. Mr. Dole. Mr. President, I would be happy to respond to the Senator's questions. Mr. Metzenbaum. Mr. President, as the distinguished majority leader knows, we are all very concerned that the Department of Transportation implement this legislation, upon its enactment, in an effective and timely manner. Toward that end, I understand that commercial airlines have already designed procedures intended to provide for the safe carriage of handicapped passengers and that these procedures are placed on file with the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to a Federal Aviation regulation (14 CFR Sec. 121.586). Mr. Dole. I am aware that these procedures to which the distinguished Senator refers have been developed by some of the airlines. I believe also that there have been regulations promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration and its predecessor agency, the CAB. These regulations have been under development since 1977. They deal primarily with safety. However, since the Supreme Court decision in the "Paralyzed Veterans" case in June, the regulations affect only those few small airlines receiving direct Federal financial assistance. Mr. Metzenbaum. The Senator is correct. The regulation I referred to was promulgated in 1977 and intended originally to provide access to air carriers for anyone who is handicapped. But the procedures left to each airline are not working. Incidents of discrimination continue in what appears to me to be an ever increasing pattern. In fact, the procedures themselves may actually be discriminatory in many instances. A letter from the Secretary of Transportation received by me in July, 1986, a copy of which I believe was also sent to the majority leader, indicates that the Department does not evaluate the airline procedures for potentially discriminatory requirements, absent a specific complaint by a handicapped passenger. The only check made on the procedures by the Federal Aviation Administration is to determine that the procedures themselves do not pose safety problems. If we are going to tackle successfully this problem of discrimination against the handicapped on airlines, we are going to have to be sure that the procedures that each airline places on file with the FAA do not contain discriminatory requirements. Mr. Dole. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Ohio that I agree entirely with the sentiment he is expressing. I understand that a safety review of each airline's procedures is already made by the FAA. Our intent in S. 2703 is that so long as the procedures of each airline are safe as determined by the FAA, there should be no restrictions placed upon air travel by handicapped persons. Any restrictions that the procedures may impose must be only for safety reasons found necessary by the FAA. Beyond this, the Secretary of Transportation should review each airline's procedures in light of the regulations to be promulgated pursuant to S. 2703 to ensure that the procedures of each airline do not contain discriminatory requirements. This review will be essential in my judgment for the uniform, timely, and effective implementation of this bill's nondiscrimination policy. Mr. Metzenbaum. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for clarification of this point. Since the airlines already file procedures with the FAA, it just makes good sense that S. 2703 should require a review in order to bring the procedures into conformity with the nondiscrimination policy. I understand that this is the intent of the legislation. Mr. Dole. Mr. President, the Senator's understanding is correct. Mr. Metzenbaum. I thank the Senator. -------------------- The next speaker to join the discussion was Senator Charles Grassley (Republican from Iowa). He raised a point which is dear to the hearts of the blind, and the message must be heard by the regulation writers at the Department of Transportation. The discussion points up the fact that all disabilities are not the same. Many people, such as the blind (as Senator Grassley states), are not limited in their ability to use the airlines. Senator Dole agreed and explained further his intent that "abilities, not disabilities," are to be emphasized by the nondiscrimination policy. As far as the blind are concerned, we are not going to be regimented into an overly simplified and single-minded mold, labeled "the handicapped." It is clear that the Senate majority Leader (the sponsor of the bill) agrees. Here is the discussion: -------------------- In the Senate of the United States August 15, 1986 Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, I, too, rise in support of S. 2703, and I commend the Senator from Kansas, the distinguished majority leader, for bringing this legislation to the floor without delay. May I simply make one brief inquiry of the Senator? Mr. Dole. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, and I would be most pleased to respond to his inquiry. Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, I am struck by the fact that S. 2703 contains a very broad definition of "handicapped person" fashioned, I believe, after the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. That seems appropriate to ensure that anyone who may be subjected to discrimination based on handicap will be afforded the protection of Federal regulations and this act. However, each disability is not equally limiting, and different disabilities impose different limitations under different circumstances. Many disabilities impose no limitation or handicap whatsoever on an individual in air travel. Constituents of mine who are blind have made this point repeatedly-- and I think legitimately--in their dealings with the airlines. Is it the intent of the Senator's bill to take these differences among disabilities into account, especially as the regulations are developed by the Secretary of Transportation? My concern is that discrimination against the handicapped often may arise by treating everyone who is handicapped alike, regardless of the nature or extent of the disability. Mr. Dole. Given the general language of S. 2703, the distinguished Iowa Senator's concern is very important and appreciated. It is not our intent to regiment the treatment of the handicapped under identical procedures that apply necessarily in the same manner to everyone. Rather than focusing our attention on disabilities, we should be thinking in terms of abilities. Many individuals--including those mentioned by the Senator and others--may be able to use air transportation in precisely the same manner as all other travelers who are not handicapped. Others may need assistance. Everyone must be served in air transportation in a manner appropriate to their abilities. That is the intent of the nondiscrimination policy of S. 2703. Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his clarification. -------------------- On September 18 members of the House of Representatives got their opportunity to speak on and vote for the bill to prohibit discrimination by airlines. Representative Norman Y. Mineta is chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee in the House. He, too, has been sensitized to the need to overhaul airline procedures that discriminate. Further, Mr. Mineta is not in favor of treating all of the handicapped alike. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Mineta's statement: -------------------- In the House of Representatives September 1, 1986 Mr. Mineta. ...The bill now before us, S. 2703, will help ensure that airlines do not discriminate against handicapped passengers. During the past year I had a number of meetings with representatives of handicapped groups and I have been concerned with the special difficulties which handicapped persons sometimes face when they travel. One cause of these difficulties appears to be that there is considerable confusion among airlines and their employees about the obligations of an airline to furnish the same air transportation services to the handicapped as are furnished to other passengers. The confusion has been increased by a recent Supreme Court decision which ruled that nonsubsidized airlines are not subject to the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting discrimination against the handicapped. The bill now before us, S. 2703, will make it clear that airlines may not discriminate against handicapped persons. The bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to enact regulations to ensure that handicapped passengers are treated fairly and are not subject to discrimination. In addition, we expect the Secretary of Transportation to review the procedures for transporting the handicapped which the airlines have filed with the Federal Aviation Administration. The review will ensure that airline procedures do not discriminate and impose only those restrictions necessary for safety. In carrying out its responsibilities DOT should bear in mind that all disabilities are not equally limiting and that many handicapped individuals are able to use air transportation in precisely the same manner as travelers who are not handicapped. DOT should ensure that handicapped persons will receive air transportation services geared to their capabilities. -------------------- These statements from congressional leaders make it clear that a new day, filled with hope and promise, has dawned for the blind in their battle for equality in air travel. It will largely be up to us (to us who are blind) to use the new law in ways which will put an end to discrimination by the airlines once and for all. Congress has declared the national policy--that there must be an end to discrimination by the airlines. Now we must make it all come true. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REFUSES TO ENFORCE THE LAW Any blind person who has been the victim of discrimination by an airline may file a complaint with DOT (the federal Department of Transportation). That is the case now, and it was the case even before the passage of Public Law 99-435, which prohibits discrimination against "the handicapped" on all airlines. The Secretary of Transportation (Elizabeth Dole) and other top officials of her department have repeatedly said in public statements and in writing that they will promptly investigate all complaints and take action to enforce the law. This, too, is not new. However, when the government says it will "promptly investigate" any complaint of discrimination and "take action to enforce existing laws," the expression and the reality may, to say the least, be divergent. On March 19, 1986, Marc Maurer was manhandled by United Airlines' personnel and carried from an airplane. He was sitting in an overwing exit-row seat to which he had been assigned. On May 19, 1986, Mary Ellen Reihing was denied air transportation because she was seated in an emergency overwing exit-row seat to which she had been assigned on a Piedmont commuter flight. When Miss Reihing refused to leave her seat, the flight was canceled and the plane taken to the hangar, where it was parked with Miss Reihing still aboard. On June 26, 1986, Barbara Pierce was arrested and removed from a Trans World Airlines flight by St. Louis, Missouri, airport police for occupying her assigned seat in an emergency overwing exit-row. All charges were dropped when the police found that Mrs. Pierce had (contrary to statements by airline personnel) not violated any law. Each of these incidents became the subject of a specific complaint filed (with NFB's help) with DOT's Office of Consumer Affairs. The complaints were handled by the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings. This was a critical test of the good faith and integrity of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Transportation. Would DOT actually enforce a nondiscrimination policy? Would the airlines be ordered to remove their exit-row seating limitations? Would the airlines be found in violation of the law? Can the blind be forced to move from emergency overwing exit-row seats, seats to which they have been assigned by the airlines? These questions were the essence of the complaints presented to DOT for decision and action. There should have been no delay and no problem in DOT's answers. The blind persons involved were subjected to treatment which was different from that accorded to non-blind air travelers. Each of the blind passengers was able to comply with reasonable, safety-related requests of airline personnel. There was no safety necessity for their removal from emergency exit-row seats, seats to which the airlines themselves had assigned them. Restrictions on seating of blind passengers are not called for as a matter of safety regulation by the Federal Aviation Administration. Therefore, the airlines discriminated against each of the blind individuals in question. Under date of September 29, 1986, DOT's Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings issued his decision in a combined response to the three complaints. The airlines did not discriminate, he said. This decision by DOT's assistant counsel is, of course, not the end of the matter. It is only the beginning. Always in the past the airlines (when they have been asked about their rules) have contented themselves with vague generalities, shadow-boxing, and ducking. Now, at long last, they have been forced into the open. They have had to explain in writing why they think the exit-row seating limitations for blind people are justified. The answers are almost more astonishing and unbelievable than the policies and the practices. Here is what United Airlines said in part: "On April 8, 1986, United flight #732 landed at O'Hare International Airport and suffered a collapsed left landing gear. Because the Captain saw a fuel leak from the left engine of the B- 737 aircraft, an evacuation of the passengers from the right side of the aircraft was executed. Had the Captain not been able to see the fuel leak, a passenger exiting over the wing could have seen it and advised the crew and passengers not to exit over the left wing. The policy of not seating blind passengers in emergency exit rows is plainly intended to maximize the opportunities of a safe evacuation through removal of the exit window and assessment of an available over-the-wing escape path." Is this argument reasonable? Would the average passenger (one who might have consumed several drinks) really stop in an emergency evacuation, make a cool assessment, report the matter back to appropriate personnel inside the plane, and cause a change in the pattern of evacuation? In the rush of passengers to evacuate the plane, how would a passenger fare who tried to buck the tide and re-enter the plane to find the appropriate person to whom to report? Would such a passenger be more likely to be heeded or trampled? It is reminiscent of the days when blacks were told that they must use separate drinking fountains for the safety of the public and barbers did not know how to cut their hair. Here in part is what TWA said: "Ms. Judy Nichols, Ms. Pierce's secretary, submitted an affidavit which mentions that another passenger with a mobility handicap was seated next to an emergency exit and was not asked to move. As previously stated, TWA's regulations in this regard. . .are not directed toward handicapped individuals, but only to those passengers who would impede evacuation. A person with a mobility problem is fully able to read and obey the instructions for evacuation." If the logic of this argument escapes you, all you need do is remember that it is airline logic. These are official statements provided to the Department of Transportation by airlines. Obviously they are filled with unfounded suppositions and false reasoning, but the airlines had to find some kind of argument to make. There is no more evidence that blind people are hazards in exit rows than there is that airline personnel are primarily concerned with safety. Witness the universal practice of serving an abundance of liquor to passengers in exit rows. The correspondence reprinted in this article sets forth the situation in graphic detail. The lack of a rational basis for the exit-row limitations is obvious, and it is equally obvious that the superstitions and myths upon which these restrictions are based cannot withstand logical examination. Congress has now passed a new law which requires each procedure of an airline to be subjected to a nondiscrimination test. Restrictions that do not have a rational safety basis are not to be allowed in the future. The Federal Aviation Administration (not the airlines individually) will be required to say which procedures are necessary for safety and which are not. Under current federal regulations exit-row restrictions are not considered necessary for safety. It will no doubt be a matter of some debate as to whether that will continue to be the case. Meanwhile, the airline safety hoax is now completely in the open. The ruling against the complaints of Marc Maurer, Mary Ellen Reihing, and Barbara Pierce is not particularly surprising or discouraging. It is simply an expression of present day airline thinking, backed by the bureaucrats at DOT. As is so often the case, this is not a dispute about facts to be settled by logic. The restrictions arise from prejudice. We have experience in dealing with prejudice. Other myths and superstitions have been overcome in our march toward freedom and equality. The airline battle is no different from the rest. Now that the airline safety hoax has been forced into the open and reduced to writing, we must meet and destroy it with the same determination we have shown in other such cases. This is the challenge we face, and it will require the combined best efforts of us all if the challenge is successfully to be met: -------------------- Washington, D.C. September 29, 1986 Mr. James Gashel Director of Governmental Affairs National Federation of the Blind Baltimore, Maryland RE: Complaints of Mr. Marc Maurer, Ms. Barbara Pierce, and Miss Mary Ellen Reihing Dear Mr. Gashel: This letter is in further response to your separate inquiries on behalf of the above individuals. Each of these persons was denied a seat in an over- wing emergency exit-row of an aircraft because he or she is blind. I have now received and reviewed responses from United Airlines regarding Mr. Maurer's complaint, Trans World Airlines regarding Ms. Pierce's complaint, and Jetstream International, of Piedmont's Commuter System, regarding Miss Reihing's complaint. A copy of each carrier's reply is enclosed for your information. For the reasons detailed below, none of the above complaints constitutes reasonable grounds for instituting an enforcement action against the respective carrier involved for a violation of Part 382 of the Department's regulations, 14 CFR Part 382. In reviewing complaints alleging discrimination by airlines against handicapped persons, this office considers a number of factors before deciding whether to proceed with formal enforcement action. First, we attempt to determine whether the particular action taken by the airline affecting the handicapped person is required in the interest of safety. If it is, then we do not consider the action to be unlawful discrimination. In establishing whether a requirement exists, we look to the FAA for assistance. Where a Federal Aviation Regulation exists requiring a particular action or where the FAA requires a particular action as part of its approval or clearance process associated with airline manuals and procedures, we consider the action to be justified. Second, if there is no express safety regulation requiring a particular airline action, we attempt to determine whether the action was justified. As part of that determination, we look to the primary motive of the airline in taking the action--that is, was the motive to improve safety or some other reason, such as operational convenience, or a lack of knowledge of, or sensitivity to, the abilities of handicapped persons. We also seek the advice of the FAA if the claimed reason for the action is safety. Even if a carrier articulates a safety justification for its action, where that action deprives a handicapped passenger of adequate access under section 404 of the Federal Aviation Act, its action would violate Part 382. The duty to ensure safe travel has always been, and remains today, the highest priority of the Department. At the same time, it is our duty to ensure that all passengers, including the handicapped, have adequate access to air transportation. Where a carrier's voluntary action to improve the safety of its operations denies the handicapped adequate service, we have authority and will not hesitate to act. The facts of each case are of utmost importance in making these kinds of decisions. Based on the information available to us, we have decided not to take any further action at this time with respect to the three complaints you have forwarded. In each case, the discrimination alleged concerned an airline's decision not to allow a blind person to sit in an overwing emergency exit-row. There is no specific FAA regulation allowing or prohibiting the seating of blind passengers in seats located in emergency exit-rows. However, the carrier policies in question are consistent with a safety recommendation contained in FAA Advisory Circular 120- 32, issued March 3, 1977, which at page 9, paragraph 9c, states: "Ambulatory handicapped passengers should be seated in areas in which evacuation would normally occur through a floor-level, non-overwing exit." (Emphasis added) The action taken by each of the carriers--asking the blind passenger to move to a different row of seats--was consistent with the FAA recommendation and did not deny that passenger adequate service under existing regulations. [One thinks of the blacks who were required to sit at the back of the bus. Certainly they were not denied "adequate service." But back to the letter from the Assistant General Counsel.] Moreover, there is no evidence that the airlines took the actions they did for any reason other than to improve the safety of all the passengers on the airplane. Whether Mr. Maurer, Ms. Pierce, or Miss Reihing have a civil cause of action and are due monetary relief for mental anguish, invasion of privacy, humiliation, or other costs requested in each of the complaints are matters properly pursued in another forum. The relief requested is beyond our authority. Our decision with respect to the complaints you forwarded is based only on the current regulations and the information available to us now. The decision not to initiate an enforcement proceeding is that of this Office and does not reflect a decision of the Department with respect to any course of action in the future. As you are probably aware, the Department recently issued Notice 86-7 (51 FR 30078; August 22, 1986) which requests information from the public on airline practices and procedures affecting the travel of blind passengers. That notice specifically requests comments regarding the seating of blind persons in emergency exit rows, and on whether the Department should take regulatory action to ensure that blind persons are not denied the seating of their choice in this situation. You might wish to submit information to the Department to assist in its inquiry. A copy of Notice 86-7 is enclosed. Please let me or Dayton Lehman of my staff know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Samuel Podberesky Assistant General Counsel Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings -------------------- Baltimore, Maryland October 15, 1986 Mr. Samuel Podberesky Assistant General Counsel Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. RE: Complaints of Marc Maurer, Barbara Pierce, and Mary Ellen Reihing Dear Mr. Podberesky: This is in response to your letter of September 29, 1986, announcing DOT's decision not to commence formal enforcement action in the above-captioned complaints. By this letter I am asking you to reconsider DOT's position on these complaints for the reasons set forth below. Alternatively (should reconsideration be denied) please provide me with a statement that the decision not to commence enforcement with reference to each complaint is a "final agency action." If it is not a "final agency action," please advise me of any additional administrative remedies which we may be required to exhaust. The basis for your conclusion that none of the airlines in question violated Part 382 appears to be that the "adequate air service" requirements were met in each case. But, of course, they were not. Each of the passengers was denied air transportation on the flight as scheduled. They were each detained through no fault of their own. Airline personnel in each case made the decision not to dispatch the flights as scheduled until their unreasonable demands were met by the blind persons or (under arrest) the blind persons were removed from the aircraft. Under the circumstances it is hard to imagine what the "adequate air service" standard really means. There was no air service as long as airline personnel held to their baseless and discriminatory demands. Further, the "adequate air service" requirements of Section 404 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Part 382, prohibits discrimination based on handicap. The concept of "adequate air service" therefore includes compliance with Part 382. However, the decision concludes that "adequate air service" was available and then fails even to consider or analyze the discriminatory conditions of seating which were imposed upon each blind passenger. Yet, each blind passenger was unreasonably subjected to "separate or different" treatment. The net effect of the decision not to enforce Part 382 in these cases is to set aside Part 382, as though it never existed. The decision says in effect that, Part 382's requirements to the contrary notwithstanding, separate or different air transportation services for the blind are approved by DOT, as long as some form of "adequate air service" may be provided. Under this standard of enforcement, Part 382 would not prohibit an airline from restricting blind persons to window seats in rows that are as far from emergency exits as possible. Some airlines have done this, attempting to justify the seating limitations by alleged safety reasons. Many airlines also insist that blind passengers wait submissively in their seats while others evacuate first in an emergency, regardless of where the blind passenger may be seated. Yet the Department's present enforcement standard would appear to permit airlines to direct the blind to wait during emergencies, as long as the stated reason is safety and "adequate air service" is provided despite the evacuation restrictions. The decision not to enforce Part 382 is tantamount to a finding that the three blind passengers are not "qualified handicapped individuals." Reliance on FAA's advisory circular (incidentally, not cited by any of the airlines in the responses to the complaints) appears to be the principal basis for the conclusion that the passengers are not "qualified handicapped individuals." But the advisory circular is not a safety regulation. As the decision correctly notes: "There is no specific FAA regulation allowing or prohibiting the seating of blind passengers in seats located in emergency exit rows." It is a false and unsupportable presumption to hold that blind persons do not qualify to sit in emergency exit rows, while all sorts of non-blind persons with known and unknown limitations qualify for these seats. With respect to the blind subjects of these complaints, both the Department and the airlines would be hard put to prove in court that they are not as qualified as the non-blind members of any random group of occupants of emergency exit row seats. Moreover, in the absence of a specific FAA regulation, the advisory circular should not in effect be accorded the status of a Federal regulation. In 1974, FAA actually proposed a regulation that included seating restrictions for blind passengers. The restrictions were rejected, however, in favor of having airlines develop their own procedures and file them with the FAA (See 14CFR Section 121.586). FAA does not disapprove airline procedures which do not impose seating restrictions on blind passengers. According to FAA officials, the airlines' procedures that do not have restrictions are accepted for filing, because they do not violate FAA's safety regulations. However, without a shred of evidence to support a decision which is contrary to FAA's "non-regulation" position, the decision in these cases sides with the airlines and against FAA's stated policy and actual practice. As to the safety allegations of the airlines, the presumption should actually fall with the blind passengers, not with the airlines. According to the testimony of Mr. Maurer and Miss Reihing (see their affidavits), the airline officials involved in their cases disavowed safety concerns with respect to these particular blind people. It is noted, however, that United Airlines does raise the safety issue in its written response to Mr. Maurer's complaint. By all indications, DOT has failed to consider the reasonableness (or rather the unreasonableness) of the three airlines' responses. As an example, we submit that the response from United is highly speculative and preposterous. Since the captain in a recent evacuation observed a fuel leak on the left-hand side of the aircraft, United reasons that a sighted passenger using the overwing exit on the left-hand side would have seen the leak and properly interpreted the danger of the situation. Then it also reasons that the sighted passenger could have reversed the evacuation then in progress so that all of the passengers would use the right- hand exits only. In the first place, we have no evidence that the fuel leak could have been observed from the emergency exit or on top of the wing. If the fuel leak could not be seen from the overwing exit (or on top of the wing), it wouldn't matter if an evacuating passenger could see. The leak would have to be seen from another vantage point, such as the captain's, which it was. But even if the fuel leak could be seen by a sighted person in the emergency exit row, a blind passenger in the same row could easily be told of the danger. In fact, all of the passengers (presumably all of whom were sighted) were warned of the danger by the captain, and they responded accordingly. It would be enlightening to learn how many (if any) of the sighted passengers observed the danger on their own and understood what corrective action should be taken. Interesting as it may be, the United Airlines incident offers absolutely no proof that blind persons are hazards in emergency exit rows. There was not even a blind person in the exit row. Nor is there any showing that the sighted passengers saw the danger. Under the circumstances United's safety claim for the seating restriction applied to Mr. Maurer is utterly unreasonable and without foundation. In a similar unreasonable fashion, TWA claims that, by virtue of her blindness, Barbara Pierce would be unable to comprehend or follow the directions for opening and clearing the exit in an emergency. But this assertion lacks any showing that comprehension and following of directions depend upon sight or the physical ability to read the printed instructions. As she testified in her affidavit, Mrs. Pierce had read the instructions for operating the emergency exit window. She had physically examined the apparatus. Her intelligence level, reading comprehension, and diversity of experience are all greater than normal. But according to TWA, blindness bars understanding and the following of directions. Here is an example of TWA's reasoning that the DOT's decision apparently approves of and accepts. "Ms. Judy Nichols, Ms. Pierce's secretary, submitted an affidavit which mentions that another passenger with a mobility handicap was seated next to an emergency exit and was not asked to move. As previously stated, TWA's regulations in this regard. . .are not directed toward handicapped individuals, but only to those passengers who would impede evacuation. A person with a mobility problem is fully able to read and obey the instructions for evacuation." So, reading, comprehension, and the ability to follow directions (all qualities which Barbara Pierce has in abundance) are the traits which make for a qualified emergency exit-row occupant. Shockingly it matters not that the man with a mobility impairment could not move quickly in comparison to passengers without mobility impairments (including Mrs. Pierce). His slower movements would predictably block other passengers in their scramble to reach the emergency exit. And once on the wing, could the man with a mobility impairment quickly descend to the ground and run from the plane as Mrs. Pierce could do? From the evidence, it is unlikely that the man with a mobility impairment could even support himself or walk without his crutches. He would not, of course, have access to his crutches in an emergency. Yet, this mobility impaired man with sight is acceptable in an exit-row while physically fit and agile Barbara Pierce is not. Surely it is obvious that the exit-row exclusions that were exercised by airlines with respect to Mr. Maurer, Mrs. Pierce, and Miss Reihing were and are arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory. The exclusions were applied to these individuals solely because they are blind and without regard to their individual abilities. So, too, other passengers with their disabilities (known and unknown) were seated in exit- row seats on their flights. The restrictions in the case of these individuals are based on prejudice, not safety. The written rationale presented by each airline demonstrates that any claim to safety in these incidents is baseless. In light of the foregoing, a reconsideration of the complaints of Mr. Maurer, Mrs. Pierce, and Miss Reihing is certainly in order. If a procedure for filing or refiling these complaints is available or required to obtain a "final agency action," please advise and explain the procedure. Thank you for your attention to this response and our request for reconsideration. Respectfully submitted, James Gashel Director of Governmental Affairs National Federation of the Blind P.S. Secretary Dole's letter, sent to nearly half of the members of the Senate in July, 1986, states that, "We view Part 382 as prohibiting airlines from affording separate or different services to blind persons who are qualified handicapped persons. The Department would, therefore, regard as inconsistent with Part 382 an airline practice that afforded, to blind passengers, separate or different services that could not be regarded as being based on a reasonable expectation that the safety of the flight and the people on it would be jeopardized. The Department would also regard as inconsistent with Part 382 insistence by an airline that blind passengers comply with requests to accept separate or different services that are neither safety-related nor necessary for the provision of air transportation." That policy appears to be in keeping with the intent of Part 382. However, the decision not to commence enforcement actions in these complaints disregards Secretary Dole's stated policy. The inconsistency is that "adequate air service" is enough for an airline to avoid being found in violation of Part 382, discriminatory actions of the airline notwithstanding. In case there is any confusion or doubt about the matter, it is our considered position that under the circumstances involved in each of these complaints, the restrictions on seating were not reasonably related to safety or necessary for the provision of air transportation. Accordingly, DOT should undertake enforcement in accordance with the policy that Secretary Dole has indicated. OPENING UP A BAG by Jane Crawford (Jane Crawford is from Trumbull, Connecticut.) What does one do with a mixed bag of emotions except to sort them out? Here is what is partially in my bag--a feeling of being an outsider, confusion and chaos, admiration, pride mixed with anger, and finally a sense of belonging. This bag started filling up when I arrived for my first NFB convention in Kansas City. I am a sighted person, and although I had understood that the convention was open to all who had any dealings with the blind (I am a teacher of the visually impaired), I began to feel alienated. There was the confusion--all those canes and all those dogs--all those people trying to get from one place to another--all that sense of misdirection and even downright pushiness on elevators and buses. These were my initial impressions, and I didn't want to be there. Then, all of a sudden, things began to come together for me. I attended seminars (still feeling like an outsider, especially after hearing about "agency" people). My thoughts were, "I'm not one of those," and "I'm not trying to do for the blind that which they can do for themselves," and "Holy Cow, maybe I am!" That's when I stepped outside of myself and really looked at what was going on. This convention was like any other--a mixture of people brought together from all over the world with different educations, different ideals, different philosophies, et cetera. But with a common purpose--to stand up for what they believe in and to fight for it. That's when the admiration began to set in--and the pride--and the anger. I have no idea what it takes to organize something like Kansas City, but I can imagine the work and dedication. I started to become proud of the people I met and of myself. Chaos had become exuberance and interest and caring. Anger became channeled into action, and then my sense of alienation left me. I could make friends here. I came home to find that a job I really wanted was mine. I will go on teaching the visually impaired, but with new understandings of what I am really supposed to do. It is after all what people can do for themselves that counts. That message was the final item that I took out of my bag when I got home from Kansas City. ANNOUNCING THE 1986-87 NFB BRAILLE READING CONTEST FOR BLIND CHILDREN by Barbara Cheadle Someone once said, "Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?" That's the way most of us feel whenever we think about the downward spiral in the use and availability of Braille. Where will it end? How can we get teachers to teach Braille? How can we get more Braille? How can we get blind children to read Braille? How can we make Braille respectable again? Well, the Parents of Blind Children Division of the NFB and the National Association to Promote the Use of Braille got together two years ago and came up with an exciting project to help battle this alarming decline in the use and respectability of Braille. In 1984 we announced our first annual Braille Reading Contest for Blind Children and boldly proclaimed that "Braille Readers Are Leaders". That contest was a wonderful success. We followed it with another in 1985-86 and are now ready to launch our third contest for the 1986-87 year. The obvious purpose of the contest is simple; get more blind children to read Braille and to read more of it. We reasoned that reading speed and proficiency would increase if blind kids just read more. We also hoped that children who didn't enjoy reading would discover, just by participating in the contest, that Braille was fun and was also a valuable skill. That is what we hoped would happen, and it did! Teachers and parents now say that their blind children and students are reading more Braille and enjoying it more, just because of the NFB contest. One teacher was stunned at the number of pages one of her students read. She really hadn't believed that the student could do so well. Other teachers are thrilled with the progress their students make. The contest motivates the students to start reading, they say, but soon the reward is simply in reading Braille itself. Parents learn, too. One parent told us that it had not occurred to them that Braille could be read for fun and pleasure. Her son, who once only read school assignments, now reads extensively for his own pleasure and information. Another parent said she hadn't realized how little was available in Braille until her daughter entered the contest. The best result of all is that through this contest we are demonstrating to these blind children, to their parents, teachers, friends, and other members of their community, that it is respectable to be blind. The techniques the blind may use--such as Braille--are not inferior substitutes, but viable alternatives. Blind people, we say, can compete on a basis of equality. Because of the NFB and this contest, more blind children are now getting the confidence and skills they need to compete. When we publicize the contest, we are also helping educate the public and making it possible for all blind persons to have more opportunities. Like the previous contests, the 1986- 87 contest is open to all blind school- age children in kindergarten through twelfth grades. The contest begins December 1, 1986, and ends March 1, 1987. Registration forms are to be sent in at the beginning of the contest, and official entry forms are due no later than March 10, 1987. Children compete in one of five categories, and first, second, and third place winners are selected from each category. The winners receive cash prizes of $50.00, $25.00, and $5.00; special T-shirts proclaiming "I'm A Winner. Braille Readers Are Leaders"; and certificates. Every contestant receives a Braille certificate and a ribbon just for entering. Federationists can help promote and publicize the contest by seeing to it that contest entry forms are distributed widely to teachers, parents, and librarians in their city or state. Whenever possible, we arrange for Federationists publicly to present the awards to the winners. If you have contestants or winners in your area, make sure that they get proper recognition at school awards ceremonies, your state convention, local chapter meetings, or any other appropriate occasion. Also, contact the newspapers and other news media in your area about contestants or winners in your community. The contest is an excellent opportunity to get the NFB name and philosophy out to the public. Because of the nationwide attention that is now being focused on illiteracy in the U.S., this would be an especially good time to catch the media's attention about Braille and the problem of illiteracy among blind children. To get entry forms or more information about the contest, write or call; Betty Nicely, President, NAPUB, 3618 Dayton Ave., Louisville, KY 40207; phone (work) 502-897-6439 or (home) 502-897-2632. You may also contact: Barbara Cheadle, National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, MD 21230; (301) 659-9314 or at home, 301-644-4149. SPRING MERCHANTS CONFERENCE by Ramona Walhof (The Blind Merchants Division of the National Federation of the Blind has for a number of years held a meeting somewhere in the nation each spring. In view of the problems which are now occurring in the vending program throughout the country, it is especially important that blind vendors attend these meetings and inform themselves so that they may take collective action.) Begin planning now for the spring Merchants Conference! It will be April 3 - 5, 1987, at the Day's Inn in Detroit. In many ways Michigan has the best program for blind vending facility operators anywhere in the country. Larry Posont, President of the NFB Merchants Division, is also Chairman of the Michigan Vendors Committee and has been for a number of years. Al Harris, President of the NFB of Michigan, is on the Board of the Michigan Commission for the Blind. Others have made contributions, and it has taken time, but the Randolph-Sheppard program in Michigan leads the nation, and both agency staff and vendors would tell you they are planning many improvements still to come. Friday, April 3, we will tour several different types of vending facilities in the downtown Detroit area. Saturday's program will deal with many business concerns with a banquet in the evening. Sunday morning will be our business meeting. Adjournment will be no later than 1:00 p.m. This is the best chance blind business people will have during 1987 to share experiences and ideas. In addition, it is a chance to see how a strong vendors committee works. Spring merchants conferences have been getting more exciting every year, but 1987 will undoubtedly be better than ever before. If you cannot come, make sure someone from your state does come and brings back a report. If you miss this meeting and run into trouble at home, you probably would have got some of the answers at the conference. Make your plans now to come. Hotel rates are $40.00 for single rooms and $45.00 for doubles. Address reservations to: The Day's Inn, 313 Michigan Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226; or phone (313) 965-4646. BLIND PASTOR GIVES CHURCH VISION by Dale James Times Religion Editor The following article appeared in the September 27, 1986, Huntsville (Alabama) Times. As Monitor readers know, Reverend Frank Lee was elected to membership on the Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind at the convention last summer in Kansas City. -------------------- When the congregation of Lakeside United Methodist Church learned their new pastor was blind, they were understandably concerned. Would he be able to minister to their needs effectively? Were they getting short-changed? "At the time we knew he was coming, back in June, the church was apprehensive," recalled Hayward Handy, director of communications at Lakeside. "There were mixed reactions to the news that he was blind. We were unfamiliar and unacquainted with this situation." That was before they actually met the Rev. Frank Lee. For Lee, however, having to prove himself is nothing new. Methodist ministers serve under the appointive system and are reassigned to a new church every three years on average. Each new assignment has meant that Lee must overcome the same misconceptions about his abilities that other blind people often face. "I pastored my first church in Lafayette (Ala.) in 1972," said Lee, a large man with a gentle laugh. "When I first came into this (North Alabama) conference, nobody knew me. They thought they were being cheated. They were asking the question, 'What in the world are we going to do with this poor blind man?' "But after six years I proved I could do the job and they stopped asking. They had more doubts than I did. "From there I moved up the road about 25 miles to Roanoke. By then, they already knew a little about me." The congregation at Lakeside no longer questions Lee's ability to minister either. "We haven't done anything special to accommodate Pastor Lee," Handy said. "He oriented himself to the building very quickly. He can go anywhere and do anything you'd expect a sighted person to do. "If you didn't know, you wouldn't know." Lee concedes that being blind presents a number of obstacles for a pastor, but none that can't be overcome. "Driving is a problem," he said. "I have to depend on my wife or some other member of the congregation to drive me to the hospital or wherever. But once I get there, the actual ministering is no problem. "A lot of times I might need to know the facial expression of a person I'm talking to. But if I can get them to say something, their voice usually gives away their facial expression. "Reading, naturally, is another problem. That sometimes causes a problem in getting information in a timely manner." Reading the Bible, though, is no problem. "We've got Braille Bibles in just about every translation now," he said. "If it's not in Braille, I can get it on tapes." One of Lee's most uncanny talents, as far as his sighted congregation is concerned, is his ability to recognize members--and there are 255 of them--by just the sound of their voices. "I work at that because the people I work with like for me to recognize their voices, and I like to be able to do that," explained Lee, a graduate of the Alabama School for the Blind in Talladega. "Some of them get upset when I can't, but I try hard." Trying hard seems to come natural to Lee. This year the National Federation of the Blind chose Lee as one of the 24 outstanding blind students in the nation and presented him with a $2,000 merit scholarship for his doctoral studies at Gammon Theological Seminary. The NFB is the nation's oldest and largest consumer group of blind people. Lee also uses a standard typewriter with skill and accuracy ("I do better on the manual typewriters than I do on the electrics"), is proficient in the use of a Braille writing machine, and plays piano and organ. "A lot of people have got the wrong idea about blind people," he said. "The biggest problem about being blind is often other people's attitudes." Those attitudes range from ignorance to outright hostility. "I think it's up to the blind person to put forth a decent disposition," Lee said. "But you have to remember that not all sighted people are easygoing either. "I try to be true to the profession of the ministry. I try to be as cordial and reassuring as I can be. I can do this not in spite of my blindness, but because of my blindness." VOICE-DIALER TELEPHONE by Kenneth Jernigan In the course of my work with the National Federation of the Blind I come across all kinds of people and all kinds of specialized aids and devices. Mostly the people are interesting, and the aids and devices less so. Sometimes there is a sparkling exception. Such an exception occurred recently when I had occasion to examine the Voice-Dialer Telephone and to talk with its inventor (at least, I assume he invented it), Sid Mehta, who heads up a company called Innovative Devices. Mehta said that he had been working on artificial intelligence technology for several years and that the Voice-Dialer Telephone was one of the results. As he described it, the Voice-Dialer is a regular telephone which calls a number when you speak the name of the person you want to call into the telephone mouthpiece. He said that the phone has several other features, including the ability to tell you the telephone number of any person whose name and number you have keyed into the system. When I tried the Voice-Dialer, I found it to be a delightful experience. It plugs into any regular telephone jack, and it also requires a regular wall electrical outlet. You push a button and the telephone tells you to say the name of the person you wish to call. If you don't speak with enough volume, the phone says: "Louder." It has various other comments it may make, such as: "Not long enough" if you say only one syllable in an attempt to confuse it. Assuming you have pronounced the name in a reasonably understandable manner, the phone asks you to say it again. This allows it to make sure of recognizing your voice. It will then ask you to insert the number attached to the name you have just spoken. You do this on a regular touch-tone phone pad. Then, you hang up. After that, any time you pick up the phone and say the name, it will dial the number for you. It is keyed to your voice and will not respond to other voices, but with care and repeated effort you can sometimes trick it. You may insert up to a hundred names and numbers, and if more than one person wishes to call a given number, each of you will need to say the name and key the number into the instrument. If two people key in the same name and number, it uses two of the hundred possible places. The phone does, indeed, have a directory. If you push a button and tell it the name, it will give you the phone number you have previously keyed in. These are some of the features of the instrument. There are doubtless others, but these are the ones I tried. As with everything, the Voice-Dialer has advantages and disadvantages. My experimenting indicates that if you unplug it from the wall, the numbers that have been keyed in are lost, but this simply may be my lack of understanding of how to operate the instrument. The cost of the Voice-Dialer is just under $250.00. It is certainly fun to play with, and it could have real value to a person who (for whatever reason) has difficulty in dialing telephones or remembering or looking up numbers. The NFB is not selling these phones since they are readily available at the same price we can get them. If you are interested in more information, you can call a toll-free number--1-800-345-3553. You can also write to: Innovative Devices, 1333 Lawrence Expressway, Suite 254, Santa Clara, California 95051. Mr. Mehta says that he accepts American Express, Master Card, and Visa. He also accepts personal checks, but shipment of the phone will be delayed until the check clears. **************************************** RECIPES **************************************** (Note: Diabetes is one of the leading causes of blindness. It follows that a sizable number of Federationists are diabetic. Not only diabetics but also many other people are interested in desserts which are low in calories and require little or no refined sugar. The following three recipes were taken from the October-December, 1986, Voice of the Diabetic, which is the newsletter of the Diabetic Division of the National Federation of the Blind.) SUGARLESS PUMPKIN PIE Frances Allen Columbia, Missouri Put these ingredients into your blender in this order: 1 16-ounce pumpkin or 1-1/2 cups of fresh cooked pumpkin; 2 teaspoons Sweet-N-Low; 1/2 teaspoon of each of these: salt, ginger, nutmeg. Spoon stir spices into pumpkin: 2 teaspoons cinnamon, 2 eggs, 1 14-ounce can skim evaporated milk. Instructions: Mix on medium speed. Pour into unbaked pie crust. Bake at 425 degrees for 15 minutes. Bake longer if needed. If knife comes out clean after insertion, pie is done. When cooled, Equal may be sprinkled over pie. Top cooled pie with D-Zerta whipped topping mix. Yield, number of servings: 8. Diabetic exchanges: 1-1/2 bread; 1-1/2 fat. Number of calories per serving: 185. DIABETIC GRANOLA BARS Ken & Linda Carstens Virginia, Minnesota Ingredients: 3/4 cup grapenuts 1-1/4 cups uncooked rolled oats 1/2 cup raisins 1/2 cup peanut butter 2 teaspoons vanilla 2/3 cup water 4 teaspoons honey Instructions: Mix together, adding water last. Some people prefer to use a little less water. Divide into portions and freeze. Eat frozen. Yield, number of servings: 12. Calories per serving: 157. Diabetic exchanges: 1/2 medium fat meat, 1 bread, 1/2 fat, 1/2 fruit. APPLE CRISP Carol Anderson Randolph, New Jersey Ingredients: 4 cups peeled, sweet apples 1/4 cup water or apple juice 4 teaspoons brown sugar substitute 2 teaspoons lemon juice 3/4 teaspoons cinnamon 1/2 cup oatmeal, uncooked 2 tablespoons chopped walnuts 1 tablespoon brown sugar substitute 1 tablespoon soft vegetable oil margarine Instructions: Combine apples, water (or juice), brown sugar substitute, lemon juice, and cinnamon; toss lightly to coat apples. Layer on bottom of 8- inch baking dish. Heat oven to 375 degrees. Combine oats, nuts and brown sugar substitute. Add margarine and mix well. Sprinkle over apples. Bake about 30 minutes. Serve warm or chilled. Number of servings: 4. Calories per serving: 201. Diabetic exchanges: 1-1/2 fat, 1 fruit. **************************************** (Note: The following recipes are submitted by Tony Sohl, who is a member of the Tempe-Mesa Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Arizona.) BEEF PIE 1-1/2 pounds ground beef 1/4 cup instant onions 1/4 cup chopped green pepper 1 8-oz. can tomato & mushroom sauce 1 8-oz. can green beans (drained) 1/4 tsp. cumin seed or powder 1 can Pillsbury Crescent Rolls 1 egg (slightly beaten) 2 cups shredded cheese METHOD: 1. Brown and drain beef. 2. Stir in remaining ingredients except egg and cheese. 3. Place flat crescent rolls in greased 10-inch pie plate. 4. Pour in meat mixture. Pour egg evenly over all. 5. Bake at 350 degrees for 30-45 minutes. 6. Top with cheese and let sit. FOOTNOTE: Instead of the tomato sauce with mushrooms just use 1 8-ounce can of tomato sauce and 1 4-ounce can of mushrooms. NO PEEK BEEF CASSEROLE 2-pounds stew beef cut in 1-inch pieces 1 envelope onion soup mix 1 can cream of mushroom soup 1 4-ounce can of mushrooms 1/2 cup red wine (optional) METHOD: 1. Combine all ingredients in crockpot. Stir together well. 2. Cover and cook on low 8 to 12 hours (high 5 to 6 hours). Serve over noodles or rice. SLOPPY JOANS In a non-stick skillet combine: 16-24 ounces cooked ground beef 2 tablespoons dry onion flakes 1/2 cup tomato sauce 1/2 teaspoon dry mustard 1 rib celery, chopped 1/2 green pepper, chopped 2 teaspoons dry parsley 1 tablespoon worcestershire sauce METHOD: Cook over medium heat for 10 minutes, stirring occasionally. Serve on hamburger buns. CHICKEN TAHITIAN In a baking dish: four whole chicken breasts, skinned, meat side down. Bake at 375 degrees for 30 minutes. Combine in small saucepan: 1 cup crushed pineapple with juice 2 tablespoons soy sauce 1 medium green pepper, chopped 1/2 teaspoon pepper Heat sauce until hot. Add: 4 teaspoons cornstarch dissolved in 1/2 cup water. Stir until thickened. Turn chicken over and pour sauce over and return to oven for 30 minutes. MONITOR MINIATURES * * * * * * * **Perhaps a Word Wasn't Enough: In a recent issue of the Monitor (it was either August-September or October; we don't want to take the time to look it up) we carried a miniature entitled "A Word to the Wise." It suggested (maybe too gently) that those who want items carried in the "Monitor Miniatures" section should study the format and submit the copy in such a way that it could be run without rewrite or editing. Apparently the message needs reinforcement. Specifically, if material is submitted which is longer than the ordinary miniature, it will have to be rewritten or not carried. This means that (unless it is of extreme urgency or catches the fancy of the editor) it will automatically move to the bottom of the list if something else of proper length and equal interest is available. Likewise, readers will observe that we often say with respect to a miniature: "We have been asked to carry the following announcement," or something similar. This is done to indicate that we are not necessarily advocating or supporting whatever is being sold or pushed or announced--not that we are against it but just that it should not be attributed to us. If you really want something carried (after all, it's free advertising), you should be willing to study the pattern and format of the column. Usually we will eliminate what some would call "self- serving language"--claims such as "our machine is super fast"; "this is the world's greatest"; et cetera. Again, you should study the format. If whatever it is is really that good, submit a full-scale article about it and we will consider carrying it. The "Miniature" column is not the place for editorials-- except, of course, ours. Also (and this may appear to be simply repeating what we said about length, but we don't think so) in the "Miniature" column we will always eliminate a sentence such as: "The speakers were interesting, and everybody had a good time." Maybe they were, and maybe everybody did--but a miniature (despite the length of this one--after all, editors take license) must be straight to the point and concise. Finally, as we said before, literacy is a plus. The bottom line is this: A miniature must be interesting. Otherwise, it won't be read. In short: brevity, attribution when indicated, no exaggerated claims, proper format, something to say, and literacy. A big order? Yes. But, then, that's the way we are. Just trying to avoid a little work and get the mag read. That, too, is a big order. **New Baby: "Dennis and Dorothy Neely of the Gateway City Chapter of the NFB of St. Louis, Missouri, are proud to announce the arrival of their daughter Alicia Meggin, born July 30, 1986, at 11:42 p.m., weighing six pounds, ten ounces, nineteen and three-quarter inches long. Alicia's parents and brother Dennis, Jr., are doing fine." **Brailler Wanted: Del Gray writes: My sister is blind and is in need of a Perkins Brailler. We are trying to find a used one. If you know of any, could you please write us at: Judy Cave, Route 1, Box 1794, Holts Summit, Missouri 65043. **WordPerfect: WordPerfect is a word processing program widely available for general use. If a sighted person wants to learn to use WordPerfect, he or she can study a print manual. FlipTrack Learning Systems has now issued an announcement which says in part: "FlipTrack Learning Systems has introduced a self-study audiocassette course to teach both beginning and advanced use of WordPerfect software on an IBM PC or compatible computer. In 4 audiocassette lessons of about 2 hours each, How to Use WordPerfect enables the blind or visually impaired computer user to work 'hands on' with the WordPerfect program itself--to create, edit, print and merge-print a wide variety of documents. FlipTrack's course assumes that the user has a computer, the WordPerfect software and a way to 'read' onscreen text through voice synthesization, magnification or Braille output. How to Use WordPerfect sells for $89. For more information about this or more than 20 other audio-based computer courses, write FlipTrack Learning Systems, a division of Mosaic Media, Inc., 999 Main Street, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137. Or call 800-222-FLIP (In Illinois 312-790- 1117)." **To Inform the Public: Being a member of the National Federation of the Blind means different things to different people. To Ken Rust of Minnesota it means sending a letter to a newspaper. The following article appeared in the September 7, 1986, Minneapolis Star and Tribune: "BLIND JOB HUNTERS: The difficulties Jim Mastro has experienced in his quest for employment (article, August 31 points out a problem that is familiar to many blind job-seekers. The national unemployment rate for the blind is approximately 70 percent. This statistic is rarely mentioned in the media. "As long as some employers maintain their present attitudes and misconceptions about blind applicants, a large number of talented people will continue to be overlooked in the job market. No longer are the blind forced to stand on street corners with tin cups. Many of us are lawyers, accountants, computer programmers, and teachers. Isn't it time for employers to look at our qualifications for employment, rather than our physical disabilities?--Ken Rust, Metro Chapter, National Federation of the Blind, Minneapolis." **LITUANUS: We have been asked to carry the following announcement: LITUANUS, an English language quarterly publication pertaining to Lithuanians and their heritage, is now available on cassette. The annual subscription rate is $20. Remit all payments to Gintautas Burba, 30 Snell Street, Brockton, Massachusetts 02401. **Bingo Machine: We have been contacted by Mrs. Esther Molat, Stratford 36C-CV, West Palm Beach, Florida 33417; (305) 686-6685. Mrs. Molat says that she has invented an electronic game playing machine--which, among other things, is used by blind persons in playing bingo. For further information contact Mrs. Molat. **Certified Transcribers: We have been asked to carry the following announcement: "Triformation Braille Service, Inc., is seeking sighted certified Braille transcribers to work at their Braille production facility in Stuart, Florida. Immediate openings. Salary negotiable. Please call (305) 286-8366 or write to TBS, Inc., 3142 S. E. Jay Street, Stuart, Florida 33497." **Rhode Island Convention: Catherine Gaffney writes: "On Saturday, September 27, 1986, the NFB of Rhode Island had its annual convention and banquet at the Holiday Inn in downtown Providence. One of the highlights of the day was a mini JOB seminar. Other speakers included a representative from the Regional Library, someone from a local parents group for blind children, someone speaking on new programs for the elderly blind, and a representative from the Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation. The two crowning events of the banquet were the very moving keynote address by Diane McGeorge and the announcement from a representative of the Rhode Island State Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired that as of December 31, 1986, they would no longer be affiliated with NAC. Elections were also held and officers for the next two years are: President, Richard Gaffney; First Vice President, Barry Humphries; Second Vice President, Ruth McGarrity; Treasurer, Kenneth Brackett; Recording Secretary, Mary Jane Fry; Corresponding Secretary, Cathy Gaffney; Sergeant at Arms, Tom McGarrity; and two board positions held by Howard Applegate and Grayce Grout." **Poster Contest: From South Dakota comes the following: "The National Federation of the Blind, Black Hills Chapter, will sponsor a White Cane Day Poster Contest in the Rapid City Elementary Schools. Students will learn about Braille, the use of a long white cane, and dog guides; and they will also learn that blind persons participate fully in life. Prizes will be presented to the top 36 winners at the Rapid City Public Library on Friday, October 10, 1986, at 4:00 p.m. The public is invited to join us." **Rhymes: We have been asked to carry the following announcement: That time of year is here again. Why not give that special friend or loved one the best. Give a gift of old- fashioned rhyme. MATTERS OF THE HEART, by Marita Lyn Tabron, a book of poems that "Says It All," full of heart-felt passion and compassion. Print and cassette copies are $8.00 each; Braille copies are $20.00 each. Make your check or money order payable to Mary Walker. Send your request to Marita Lyn Tabron, P.O. Box 497446, Chicago, Illinois 60649." **Reading: Deanna Morss, the former President of the NFB of Wyoming, now lives in California. She has asked us to carry the following announcement: "Reader service available for most college textbooks excluding technical books such as math, biology, chemistry, etc. Student must provide tapes and print copy of textbook to be read. Fee is $4.00 per hour. Fast, dependable service. For more information contact Deanna Morss, 3050 S. Bristol #15H, Santa Ana, California 92704; phone (714) 751-7504." **Accessories for Perkins Brailler: We have been asked to carry the following announcement: "October 20, 1986--Howe Press today announced the introduction of three new products, all designed to enhance the use and flexibility of its Perkins Brailler. Each product was developed as a result of consumer needs and requests. A 'Soft-side carry case' with handles, shoulder strap and inside pocket is now available for $39.50. This item was designed to free up the user's hands. The shape matches the Brailler and it is navy blue with gray trim. Also available is a 'print copy holder' for the Brailler which attaches to the handle. At $29.50 this simple but strong device places written material at eye level, facilitating the transcription process. Finally, an exciting product which makes the preparation of Dymo Tape far easier. Howe Press has finalized the design of a 'Dymo Tape Holder,' which inserts into the Perkins Brailler and securely holds the plastic tape during Brailling. This unit retails for $15.95. Interested individuals should contact Howe Press, 175 North Beacon Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 02172; (617) 924-3490, regarding purchasing information." **Computer Talk: Tandy Way of Tampa, Florida, writes: "I am not a commercial distributor, just an individual selling some highly demanded but rare items from my home. For sale: 'Compuserve Information Users Guide' latest edition. Gives you an in- depth study of how to use your time wisely on the data base. Available on cassette NLS format 4-track $25.00. Notch cutters for notching the reverse side of your disks for use with Apple and other computers with single-sided drive heads $12.00. A series of tapes of the tutorial variety called 'a different approach." These tapes are for the IBM compatible computers. Subjects include: the proper way to set up a hard drive, $15.00; the power of the batch files and MS DOS, $15.00; and programming in basic, a 3-tape series, $45.00. Packages of 10 disks double sided double density, $12.00. All the above include shipping. Make checks payable to Mr. Tandy Way, 8909 Peppermill Court, Tampa, Florida 33634. Phone after 6:00 p.m. week nights, any time weekends (813) 885-7182." **White Cane Celebration: State and local affiliates should consider whether they are taking full advantage of the opportunities for public education afforded by White Cane Safety Day. The following announcement was released by the Des Moines Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa: To all area blind children and their families: The Des Moines Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa would like to invite you to participate in this year's White Cane Safety Day Celebration, sponsored by our chapter. White Cane Safety Day is a day on which we as blind people celebrate the freedom to go where we wish, with the aid of white cane or dog guide, and the freedom to work in occupations of our own choosing. We also take advantage of this opportunity to remind sighted people of the pedestrian laws and equal access laws that protect the right of blind people to enjoy these freedoms. October 12-18, Olmstead Center, Drake University: Posters done by the winners of this year's White Cane Safety Day Poster Contest will be displayed in the exhibition area, first floor. October 15, 6th & Walnut Streets, downtown Des Moines: Des Moines Metro Transit Authority drivers and staff will ride city buses to the Capitol and Drake's Olmstead Center blindfolded, with white canes. 6th & Locust Streets, downtown, at noon--Des Moines police officers and cadets will travel the intersection blindfolded with canes. Visit by the NFBI mystery creature. October 18, Southridge Mall: White Cane Obstacle Course for the public--try your luck! Also, videos, Braille writing demonstration, a live band with blind musicians, the NFBI mystery creature, and other surprises. Please come and enjoy yourselves. Meet with our members, and learn more about adult blind people. We would be glad to have you be our guests. **Ohio State School for the Blind: Franklin B. Walter, Ohio Superintendent of Public Instruction, writes: "The Ohio Department of Education is celebrating the Year of Reflections: A Bicentennial Celebration of Public Education. The year 1987 marks the 150th anniversary of the Ohio State School for the Blind. This institution was the first residential school of its kind to be established in the United States with public funds. One of its alumni, Samuel Bacon, was instrumental in establishing similar schools in four other states." **Twins: President Maurer reports that he recently received a call from Arie Gamliel in Jerusalem. Arie and Nurit are the proud parents of twin boys born at 6:05 and 6:07 p.m., Jerusalem time, October 27, 1986. President Maurer says that Arie did not know how long the twins were, but he said that one is dark and the other fair. They weighed approximately four pounds each. Their names are Uziah and Gil'ad. Congratulations and much joy to the house of Gamliel--now doubled in size. **Stays Mainly in the Plain: At the 1985 NFB convention Jennifer Kellogg of New Mexico was awarded the American Brotherhood for the Blind scholarship in the amount of $6,000. Her plans were to work toward a degree in government with the hope of joining the diplomatic corps of the United States. In furtherance of this goal she has been studying abroad. On a card to Dr. Jernigan postmarked October 7, 1986, Jennifer said: "Hello from Spain! I'm studying at the University of Alicante for the fall semester. I'm having a wonderful time. I'm living with a family. They're terrific. My Spanish is getting better every day. I'm studying hard and, of course, spending plenty of time at the beach." **Large Print Torahs: The Jewish Braille Institute of America, 100 East 30th Street, New York, New York 10016; (212) 889-2525, has produced a large print English edition of the Torah, the five books of Moses. It is available without cost from the Jewish Braille Institute. A Hebrew large print Torah is currently being typeset in Israel and will be available soon from the Institute. **Dies: Jim Willows, one of the leaders of the NFB of California, writes: Alice Preston, a long-time member of the Federation, died after a short illness in early September. Alice was living in Cincinnati, Ohio, at the time of her death. Alice was most active in the NFB of California during the decades of the sixties, seventies, and eighties. She held many offices and chaired several important committees during that era. Those of us who knew her remember Alice's enthusiasm and cheerful determination in all of her activities. Alice was a source of strength to many of us through the chaotic year of 1978. She was less active after leaving California, but she continued to live Federationism until her passing. **Maine Convention: Pat Estes writes: On August 23, 1986, the National Federation of the Blind of Maine met in convention in Auburn. We were very pleased to have our new National President, Mr. Marc Maurer, as our keynote speaker. We enjoyed his address and found his cross examination of various agency heads quite stimulating. According to our state constitution, the following board members were elected: Pat Estes, President; Connie Leblond, Vice President; Mike Jacobois, Secretary; Jeanne Hume, Treasurer; Debbie Brown, Michelle Swift, and Sandy Sanbourne as Board Members. **Married: Anthony Cobb and Marie Thaler were married November 15, 1986, in Baltimore, Maryland. In true Federation style they attended the meeting of the Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind earlier in the day and then celebrated their wedding ceremony in the evening. Congratulations to the newlyweds.